Podcast appearances and mentions of chris one

Patrick speaks with Elijah from Lexington about a fascinating and deep topic: the beginning of human life and the concept of ensoulment. He discusses different beliefs, including a rabbinic view that the soul enters the body after 40 days. Patrick shares his perspective, grounded in the idea that life begins at conception, where body and soul come into existence simultaneously. It's a powerful conversation about faith, science, and morality.   Alfredo - Harris Persecuted David Daleiden when he was showing the videos exposing Planned Parenthood's abortion procedures. (01:11) Christine – The Lamenting: The story of King David and how remorseful he was, he took his contrite heart and offered it to God. (05:28) Jean - Talking about driver licenses for voting, there are states that provide licenses to illegals, so how does that work for voting? (15:35) Chris - One party is going radical, and another party is trying to save the country.   Neither party is perfect but abstaining is not an option. (16:42) Julie - My daughter two years ago had stage 4 endometriosis. Lee Ann – Voting and Ectopic pregnancies  Elijah - I was talking to a rabbi and he explained to me that when the baby is in womb, it's not human.  When baby is born, that baby is not human till the baby passes 7 weeks old. (34:26) Jesse - For the Sorrowful Mysteries, the 2nd one where he's scourged and the fruit of the mystery is purity, what's the connection between the purity and the scourging? (36:55) Teresa - I went to confession and asked the priest about voting. He recommended to vote for the party that helps the poor and needy.  (41:45) Mary - Isn't it a fair to vote for the side that would clearly result in the smaller amount of abortions?

In today's episode of Building Texas Business, fashion entrepreneur Elaine Turner is joining us to talk about her journey of launching Edit by Elaine Turner, her luxury boutique that emphasizes mindful consumption. She shares her experiences navigating the challenging retail industry and lessons from her previous ventures. Elaine gives advice on balancing your brand identity and adapting to changing customer expectations. Her stories highlight the difficulties of expanding business plans and finding community resonance. She also shares her views on building teams that align with the brand spirit, which can be valuable for entrepreneurs. Toward the end of the discussion, Elaine reflects on her personal experiences of living in Houston and Santa Fe. Elaine's gratitude for the hard-won lessons makes her a role model for navigating the industry's turbulence with empathy, vision, and agility. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Elaine shares her experience with Edit by Elaine Turner, a Houston boutique offering curated European luxury brands, emphasizing mindful consumption and the art of editing in fashion. We discuss Elaine's background in entrepreneurship within her family, her early interest in fashion, and the influence of her parents and mentors on her career. Elaine describes the lessons learned from launching a luxury line that failed, the importance of understanding brand identity, and the value of knowing your core customer base. Chris touches on the challenge of balancing novelty with accessibility in fashion and the pitfalls of expanding too quickly. We explore the importance of community focus in retail and the critical role of hiring team members who align with the brand's culture. Elaine recounts the transition from brick-and-mortar to digital commerce, noting the surprising speed of change and the recent shift back to a balance between digital and physical storefronts. Chris and Elaine discuss agile leadership, the importance of empathy, and the necessity of adapting to the needs of the workforce in the retail industry. Elaine reflects on personal transformation, the process of starting a second business, and the evolution of relationships during life's challenging phases. We chat about Elaine's personal side, including her preference for Tex-Mex over barbecue and her dream retreat to Santa Fe. Elaine shares her gratitude and excitement for her new venture, Edit by Elaine Turner, and the journey of crafting a life filled with purpose and passion. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Edit by Elaine Turner GUESTS Elaine TurnerAbout Elaine TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In this episode, you will meet Elaine Turner, founder of Edit by Elaine Turner and Elaine Turner Designs. Elaine's entrepreneurial passion centers around fashion and lifestyle brands, but her true passions are serving her community and empowering and supporting women through education, connection and philanthropy. Alright, let's get going. I cannot wait for this episode. I'm so excited to have Elaine Turner here. Elaine, thanks for joining me today. Elaine: I love being here. Thanks for having me. Chris: One of the things I love about you is that you are a serial entrepreneur, and I think those are my favorite people to talk to. Let's talk about what you're doing today with Edit by Elaine Turner. Tell us what that is. Elaine: I just opened a new store concept here in Houston, in Tanglewood, and the store is called Edit by Elaine Turner. Really, the whole idea of the store was concepted from a place of renewal and redemption, because we can talk about my story beforehand. But it was all about this idea of curating hard to find European luxury, upscale brands for the Houston clientele who I felt like the art of discovery, like what else? She goes to Tutsis and she goes to Neemans and Saks and Nordstroms and we're lucky we live in this incredible cosmopolitan city full of all the options. But I wanted to offer her something that maybe wasn't so out there and so ubiquitous. Edit was really born from the art of creation. I will be your editor and I will go out and find these really unique pieces for you to engage in and add to your wardrobe. Chris: That's great. Elaine: There's actually some real meaning behind the word edit, then right, yes, so edit is about not only let me edit for you and find those unique, hard to find pieces, but it's also about, for me personally, sort of leaning into this idea of, as women and as consumers, we only ultimately need what's essential. And I think, as we age and we become more mindful about what we put on our bodies, what we put in our bodies, that it's not always about quantity, right, we don't have to buy, like you know, every trend that's ever offered to us. Like we can be more thoughtful about what we choose. And so it's about letting go of the unnecessary and really retaining what's of value to you, and so edit is supposed to be all about that. Like I'm saying, this is what's of quality to you. Chris: I love that. I love the thought behind it. Thank you, because you're right, you can go into any store and get stuff, so this is one. This is an episode where I'm like there's so many different directions to go with you, but I think you're right. You talked about renewal and redemption. You have an amazing story because this is your second go at it. Elaine: And the first was successful. Chris: Sometimes people second goes coming out of failure. Let's talk about your passion and what got you into the kind of the fashion industry. Talk a little bit about that first venture. I think in doing that I encourage you to start what was called a Lane Turner or Lane Turner designs back in what, 1999 to 2000. Yeah, exactly 20, almost 24 years ago. A while ago, chris, you must have been an infant. Elaine: I was 29 or 30 when I started a Lane Turner designs and really my story really comes from an origin story of entrepreneurship. That's the number one thing. I was born in a family of entrepreneurs and I'm kind of a believer that entrepreneurship is sort of passed on through DNA. I think you've got to be a little left of center to engage in being an entrepreneur, because it's high risk, you kind of, it's lonely. You know you're the one kind of putting yourself out there thinking of these ideas and visions and you're usually entrepreneurs are trying to solve problems, so they're thinking, hey, what's not out there that could be out there? And I watched both of my parents start companies and both of my siblings also at one time had their own companies, and so I feel like for me it was sort of osmosis. You know, I was very much inspired by my parents. They were my mentors growing up and so I always knew when I went to school, went to UT and I majored in advertising, marketing, but I always knew I wanted to do something in fashion because my mother always encouraged. You know, this is how you express yourself. And it was always done from a more thoughtful, deep way and I was like I'm not saying, not just fashion, you know, because of materialism. But she would literally watch me walk downstairs and say, oh, you have a gift. Like you should really think about something in fashion, Like this is the art of communication. Chris: She wasn't one of those moms that looked at you and goes you're not wearing that. Elaine: Yeah Well, maybe a couple of times. You know it's an evolution, Chris. I'm not saying that I came out of the gate putting all the outfits together, right, but she always encouraged me on a much deeper level that I think this is something that you should offer the world. You know, Even in my teens and my twenties I knew I wanted to do something in fashion, and so I went to UT and then I immediately called a mentor of mine. Joanne Burnett and said I really want to do something in the fashion industry. And she said, hey, there's this company out of Dallas you should talk to and they might give you kind of an assistant job in the design area or whatever. And so it just was a super, you know, very organic growth for me. Back when I was at UT there was no fashion merchandising program, so that was in it. So I had to learn everything in the job, you know, on the job, and have like mentors train me Right, but always knowing I wanted to start my own thing. Okay, and that was always there. It didn't really happen Like some people say. That sort of happened by happenstance. For me it was pretty intentional that I knew in my twenties I wanted to learn everything and then I wanted to start my own business. Chris: So I hear that story a lot, but you also hear the ones where, like you said, there's a problem to solve and someone says, okay, I'll do this. Let's talk about taking you back to that 28 to 29 year old self when you said, okay, now it's time. Some people are scared to take that step. Let's talk about and educate the audience. What was it like for you to get to the point where you're ready to take this risk? What was that like? What did you learn from that experience? Elaine: Yeah, I mean it's a great question. I think I knew when I was 29, I had learned a lot in New York. I went from Dallas to New York and worked for several companies in New York and I started recognizing in the market that accessories were really taking a much bigger, I would say, segment of the market. So, like the big designers at the time, like Donna Karen and Ralph Lauren and all that they were starting to do these handbag collections or accessory collections right when they were really starting to kind of form a look and a name for themselves in that area. And Kate Spade was just coming on the scene and I thought, oh, there's something there that I think that there was a void that I could fill like an accessible price point, and I really focused on novelty applications. So I was really known for this resort wear look where I did Raffia rat bags and tortoise shell handles and I did a lot of specialty leathers like Python leather leathers with multi-colored. So a lot of novelty right. Chris: From. Elaine: Texas, of color and bold, and so I started thinking to myself well, what if I did a small handbag collection and put it out in the market? And I really thought about my price point because I wanted it to be accessible luxury price point and started to see if I could sell my wares. You know, and I had just moved back from New York to Houston and my first literally I have this memory my first account was walking into Titsies and Mickey Rosemary and meeting with me in private and saying I'll carry all your collection on consignment for the first six months and if it does well, then I'll start buying it. Wow. So I said it's a deal and that was how I started. And the bags were made in Brooklyn and he really mentored me on price and segmentation of the market and who you're catering to and the look and feel of the bags, and he was a huge part of why the company grew, because he really helped me understand, I think, from a little bit more of a mass perspective, how to grow the business and not keep it so boutique, right, Right. Chris: How to be able to scale to it. Elaine: Exactly, and then I was able to get into Neiman Sax and Nordstrom and started growing a really large business from there. Chris: So okay, as you got this fashion mind and creative mind, I mean, what were some of the things that you had to learn to grow that business to scale? Let's talk about that. I mean, and if you think about something like a failure man that went horrible, it went horribly wrong but by gosh, I'm glad it did because I learned so much. Elaine: Many failures and challenges and opportunities along the way. But I mean, I think that what I learned is the idea was really about offering sort of this accessible lady like elegant accessory line to women who I felt like that wasn't really happening like. As much as I loved Kate's bag, it was very basic at the time. It was like nylon little shopper bags, right. Chris: No offense Kate. Elaine: We love Kate, but now it's very novelty. So we all evolved, but at that time, yeah at that time it was just this really simple kind of utilitarian shopper bag. So I felt like I had a niche and like let's add novelty into the handbag space and the handbags were really becoming this sort of individualistic part of fashion. It's like, you know, wear a dark suit but what's the special handbag that just pops off? You Like what makes it almost that final touch. And so, for me, the challenges. I think what I learned is okay how do I retain the novelty and the specialty part, retain the price, keep the price where it needs to be, but also have a product that is appealing to a lot of women? Because I was growing scale, I mean I was like I want to open stores, I want to be in wholesale. I mean I had my own New York showroom and so some of the challenges, like an example was I decided to spin off and do a real high end more I don't know coutures, not the right line, but a real high end luxury line in Italy, but to keep my more accessible. So, like the bags were in from like 195 to 500. Chris: That was kind of where I saw it. Elaine: Well then I thought let me go off and try these $1,000 bags. Well, it ended up being a huge flop, which is okay. But I realized that by doing that I grew too fast and I was trying to appeal to a different customer too quickly before the brand had really penetrated and distributed distribution enough in those places. So it was like I jumped the gun and then I don't think I had exhausted the price point that I was in. So that was one failure or challenge that I kind of pulled back on and thought well, I think I did that too soon because you know it's a big investment, you're investing in real Python lovers and you're doing it in Italy and these little family and factories. But you learn from it. You know. You learn like no, go back to your core, don't get away from it so quickly. But you know. Chris: That's to me, what's so fascinating is getting back, you know, staying and knowing your core, because the story you just told I've heard told in many different industries, right, so it is applicable across industries. So, you kind of confused the identity of the company. Elaine: Yes, yes, that's exactly right. Chris: And you have to be careful as an entrepreneur. Be careful not to do that and if you're going to make sure you know. I think it's a delicate thing to do and it's interesting that it can happen in any industry. So right in the handbag and fashion, you can dilute that core customer who's so loyal to you. Elaine: And I think what happens with entrepreneurs that we all fall a little bit victim to and I think speaking someone might relate to this is that you're constantly thinking of the next thing because that's just you're always feeling that void will like that. I don't see enough of that. At that price point let's make it ourselves, and sometimes those ideas and that vision can get ahead of you, and then you have to be able to pivot and save yourself. Wait a minute, I think I jumped too quickly because entrepreneurism is really about creation or vision and filling the void and solving the. But sometimes you can almost go so far that you go too fast. Chris: How did you regulate yourself in? That was it? Was it surrounding yourself with, with the team? Was it just learning from trial and error? You go and I need to learn what I need to pump the brakes. Elaine: I mean it's a combination. I was lucky. I've been very blessed. My husband's always been a deep, strong partner to me and he helped me with. At first he didn't really get involved. He ended up full-time working with me in the business about after seven years of me being in business and then he started really helping me. But he was always a more cautious one to be like let's just, let's really exhaust what we're doing right now, but then seemed to have a really deep understanding of timing, of like. For example, I got into the shoe business and I was really nervous about that after what happened with the high-end collection and the shoe business did incredible for me and in fact I think if you talk to women today, that was really the category that they were the most wedded to so it, but it was the timing. I had enough, you know. I had enough brand awareness. I had multiple stores at the time. She was the loyalty and also the trust was built up at that time, whereas when I jumped to the real high-end bags I don't think I was quite there yet. So a lot of things are timing. You know when to be. You know you have to be really thoughtful about when you do big expansion moves, and I think the shoes happened at just the right time that she was ready for that. Chris: Yeah, a lot of it is timing right. Let's go back kind of the high-end handbag. So another thing that's hard for people, especially entrepreneurs, to do is to kind of admit that failure. How hard and what and what good advice would you give to say you got to know when, and it's okay, cut it and say this just wasn't, this didn't work, whatever it may be. Elaine: I think it's some one of the most important things you can do being a business owner and I mean honestly just being in business at a certain level is to know when to look in the mirror, be accountable and look at it not as a failure but as a huge opportunity for growth. And also, when that stuff happens and it's happened to me multiple times it also models for the people before you that it's okay. It's okay to go. You know this worked, this didn't, so how do we get out of this in the most thoughtful way? Also, the less you know the way, economically that doesn't hurt us as badly, but it having that courage to know when to sell, when to get out of a lease, when to liquidate a product that didn't sell. You know, those are all just parts of being in business, and I think what happens with people who end up really struggling as their egos become so involved and the pride takes over that they aren't willing to take a step back and say this doesn't mean I failed. This means that I have an opportunity to change something that didn't go as expected. Yeah, and that's also personal, like forget business how about marriages and friendships and relationships and how we navigate the earth. I mean, sometimes we just gotta look in the mirror and say we gotta redefine this yeah and that's actually a beautiful thing, and it's to me like winning in life. It's not failure. Chris: I agree. I mean, I think it's a mindset, and so I say all the time no bad experiences, just learning experiences that's it. Elaine: I'm inspired. Yes, that's it. I think we you could have answered the question okay so you have this going. Chris: You expand the shoes, you have stores that took people. So how did you build a team and how would you, when you look back, how? How would you verbalize and describe the culture that you built at a length turn? That's such a nice. Elaine: I love. Well, I loved all of that and I especially loved the culture and the brick and mortar aspect. I think that we spent so much time and energy focusing on the community and we had we're I like to say we were one of the first retailers in Texas to build a charity platform within our brick and mortar where we had an event-based charity platform. So each month we would hold several events and team up with charities and sort of have a win situation where we donate a certain amount of proceeds and then they get to experience Elaine Turner and what we're making and creating. And you know and today you see it across the board, with Tori Burch as a women's foundation and Kendra Scott has a huge event platform. But it was something that the brick and mortar stores were really an integrated, intimate experience with the community and it meant that's probably one of the biggest things that I take away that I'm the most proud of, is what I created within those stores. I really created a place for women to connect one with one another, to educate one another, to inspire one another and to give back to the community. Chris: Yeah, so it's beautiful, but it takes more than you if it's going to transcend right into the different brick and mortar locations because you can't be everywhere all the same time and I didn't know so what were some of the? Things that you did as you hired, whether it was store managers or you know, whatever your involvement was, to make sure that the people you were hiring connected with that vision and that passion. Elaine: It's. You know, hiring your team is the most foundational, essential part of how you win as an entrepreneur and it's not easy and sometimes even within that you make mistakes and vice-over I'm talking like that person might make a mistake that they even chose to come work for me. And then I realize that when the right fit on our side, it's very reciprocal. There's no one that's above anybody else, it's just sometimes the fit's not there. But we had become so well versed in who we were culturally that we were all about you know intimate experience. Giving back fun. Luxury was one of our big. We're all about having fun, it's not. We don't take ourselves too seriously. You don't have to wait in some line where there's a you know bouncer. You don't have to act like we're not too exclusive for you. We are an enveloping culture. And so it became where we actually and I'm saying at the beginning there were some probably bumpy roads, especially as we started getting into retail, but as we really started building this store footprint across Texas, we got pretty good at those managers and had really low turnover. You know where we really built and we had a store director who had come from Michael Kors who really understood how to build that team culture. But I mean, some of my most prized employees at the time were the people who are running those stores. They just got it, you know, and then sometimes it didn't, and that's okay too. Chris: It is. I mean, you're hiring is an imperfect process, right, and I think, but if you have a core identity that you know and you'll know when there's a fit and when there's not, exactly. And then the key is if it's not a fit to move fast. Elaine: Yeah, and they've all gone on. I mean it's just interesting you've asked me this question because we're going pretty personal. But you know, as I was launching edit, I started looking for some of my older leaders that I loved and they, I mean I look at my head and I'm like, oh, they're running. One's running Carolina Herrera here in Houston. Another one's store, director of Kate Spade, another that Jim's like well, we, you know, help to give them that foundation and that's awesome. But I mean nothing makes me feel better about myself to see some of those women soar in the retail space like a proud parent right yeah, and beautiful people. Chris: So that's good, that's so good. So as you ran the company, I know you got to a point where you decided it was kind of time to put things down. Yes, and you the original a late turn. You closed over a period of time. That had to be a pretty difficult decision, an emotional decision, because it was born out of passion right, it was very people come to those, you know, face those roadblocks or those forks in the road. You know how did you go about kind of handling that and then coming to grips that it was okay. Elaine: I mean, I think, just like anything, it's been a journey to get to the acceptance, or for me to find that acceptance, around that initial a lane turner designs journey. But there was a lot of things it wasn't an overnight thing that were leading up to me realizing that I needed to hit button in my life. And just like anything else, chris, it's never just usually one thing, it's usually a series of things. You know, I mean it's kind of morbid, but they always say, like a plane crash doesn't just happen with one wheel falling off, it's usually a series of things and at the time you know that's been almost six years retail had really shifted dramatically from more of a brick and mortar clientele experience to kind of the Amazon age being very real, which is all about ease and convenience, right and so, and then I'm always very transparent and vulnerable about my business. The capital was really put into the brick and mortar experience and I was behind on the digital aspects. I was, and that you know. That's just. I can totally admit that today. It wasn't that I didn't have it, but I didn't have it near like some of my competitors had it right and so I had to really come to grips with that reality that the store traffic had started to dwindle and women were really calling for the digital experience and saying, look, I don't want to find parking at your store, I don't want to do that anymore. I'm really moving into this idea that the package has dropped, I can return it and put a sticker on it, and so my husband and I were just sort of playing catch up. And then, alongside that challenge, which was immense, I personally have an autistic daughter who was also reaching teen tween age and starting to really have a deep awareness of her differences and struggling mental health wise, so I needed to find out how I could intervene and get her in a better place. And then both of my parents were diagnosed with terminal illnesses at the same time oh, wow and that's when I said okay, god, like I hear you, I get you and I'm not a failure. I need to change my life and I have, and I took those years to caretake and get people what they needed, because, even though I'm a passionate business person, I am a very driven, very ambitious. I am also just as passionate and just as I mean it's my whole life or my is my family, yeah, and so I knew that at that time I couldn't just be everything I I couldn't do it all at the same time. I realized I couldn't be and do it all at the same time, but that was okay that you know it's a beautiful story. Chris: I know there those things aren't fun to go through. I'm so sorry here, but they're seasons in life, right, and I think you know one of the. There's always lessons in every story and there's a lesson in what you just said to me and that is as passionate as you are about your business keep your priorities straight yeah, family always comes first, yeah and you're right, it didn't define who you were to shut the store down right. So that's you know it's a beautiful thing and I'm sure it was hard to go through yeah, I want to take you back to something you said because I think there is some learning in and I always have a question for you because you said look, I realized I was behind in the digital right. I was in the brick and mortar. When you look back at that, was that a function of you just truly believed brick and mortar was the way to go and this digital was a flash in the pan? Or do you think you miscalculated the digital presence and how it was really going to affect the industry and change the industry? Elaine: It was not at all discounting digital. I had a very built up website, three full-time employees who worked on my end, so it was honoring that digital was real. I had no idea how quickly the digital consumer you know landscape would shift. It was one of the most massive market shifts, I think if you've studied it. Chris: Yeah. Elaine: That's ever happened. It happened so fast. I mean, the Amazon age is real. It just took over business. It was just all of a sudden you're buying on this interface and you're not walking into stores as much and it was happened so fast. I remember my husband was like we've got to hire more digital people when we started hiring him. But as quickly as we'd hire him, it was just like our competitors were starting to offer, you know, free returns, all this stuff, like you will just come pick it up for you. Like it was, just became like. It was literally the way people were doing business and I just had no idea how quickly. I thought it would just seamlessly fit into the brick and mortar footprint. Yeah, it took over. I mean, women were like, well, just ship it to me, even just living. Like you live right here, I live over in Tanglewood, like you're you know you're saying no, you need to ship it to me, like even today I saw. Chris: Sitting at your yeah, you know, in your kitchen. I'm not coming, right, I'm not coming yet. I don't think you're dressed up, I'm not. So In hour two you're returning. Elaine: Yeah, so even our Houston base, which is our Houston Dallas our largest they were ordering on my website online and not coming in anymore, but I still wasn't able to provide the type of service that I think they were used to, even online. I was struggling to keep up with that, but what's interesting is how things come around in life, is I think there's been a real balance now? I think that's a little bit over. I think digital is still a value and I know you ordered lots of Christmas presents online. Chris: Almost all. Elaine: Right, but I still think brick and mortar now has eased back into people wanting more human interaction and tangible experience of product, especially luxury product. Yeah, I think people still want that. Chris: That's. What is funny is that I tell people the story. They've seen it in Holly's, my two girls. They create, like these, powerpoint presentations with pictures of their Christmas list with hyperlinks to the website. So yes, I did a lot of all of them. Elaine: I love hyperlinks to the website, but the higher end things. Chris: I didn't have to go to the store for a few things. So there you go. I'm a living example of what you just said. Elaine: Okay, Good, because there is a place for brick and mortar and for human interaction and human connection and educating them on product and servicing them. Tell me where you're going, tell me about you know what you need, and I think that's all finding much more of a balance now than it was six years ago. Chris: Yeah, yeah so let's talk a little bit about you as a leader. How would you define your leadership style and how did you try to show up? You know, in that 20-something year you were running a line Turner as a leader. Elaine: I think my biggest gift as a leader is I think I'm a very empathic person. I so I'm very committed to putting myself in somebody else's shoes and I think that's helped me especially lead women, because my 99% of my employees were women, and women hold a very complex position in society because of the roles and responsibilities that we have and the opportunities that we now have and the dual income families that we're creating, and so women are holding a lot of hats and are trying to be in due for a lot of people in their life. I like to call it the impossible paradigm Right. So I think that I held space for that and I think that when I look back as a leader, I hopefully felt like most of the people who work for me knew that they could pretty much come in and be vulnerable with me about what they could and could not do within the role that they had at my company. I also think that I'm a. I think I have vision. I don't want to like be arrogant, so I'm a visionary, but I think I have a lot of vision so I can look at things really high level and not get so in the weeds where we forget what we're doing as a company and what we're providing. So I'm very passionate about looking at things very philosophically and like well, what is it we're ultimately trying to provide? What's our cut through line here? What are we trying to do? I think that's another attribute that I am proud of. I think there's also challenges and opportunities and things where I've had to grow. I kind of lack structure. I've had to really lean in and and to how do I build more structure? I think a lot of entrepreneurs are sort of impulsive and are like out there trying to fill the void, and I think I've had to really understand guardrails and understand how people need structure. If they're going to work for me, so that's a big opportunity for me it's like okay, how do I provide them what they need to feel like they're doing their job the best that they can, and that's something I've had to work on. So I mean, you know, as a leader, it's just like you may just being human. You know there's some things that come really naturally to you and to me, but then there's other things. I'm like oh yeah, she really wants to have an understanding of her roles and responsibilities. Let me write that down. Chris: Write that down. Elaine: So I think it's just an evolution, it's a growth, you know very good. Chris: So we kind of started with edit and we've gone. I love what's going on, so I want to bring you back to that. You know you take a hiatus. Elaine: Obviously there was a pandemic in there and you're raising, as you said, you know teenage daughter and. What was? Chris: it that told you it was time to get back in the game. Elaine: Yeah, it's such a profound question I had. No, I was really tunnel visioned for probably three and a half years there, where I was just in this mode of caretaking and frontline decision making for my parents and my daughter and just in my husband had just recreated his whole deal and he was sort of out there sustaining us, you know which we had never in our whole marriage, had never not both worked. So that was a real interesting how we were going to figure each other out with our roles changing so much. Like I went through a deep identity crisis of like well, who am I now If I'm not this owner and this fashion person. I'm like you know who am I. I had a big grief process over kind of unraveling that, and he did too with me, you know. So it was an interesting watching us try to figure each other out. But we actually made this decision to once our daughter transitioned to this therapeutic boarding school that we found for her that she's done beautifully well at. But it was really hard for my husband and I. We went and lived in Santa Fe for six months and sort of decided that we needed a healing opportunity. You know of her kind of letting leaving the home and edit was kind of born in that sacred space and I think it's because, chris, I had a moment that I could actually create space within myself for something new for me, because for so many years it was all about somebody else. Sure, I was trying to kind of save these people that I love so dearly. And so I started talking to my husband saying you know, I have some ideas of something that maybe we could think about, and he's hugely entrepreneurial too, which is a whole other conversation we can have. Chris: But he was. Maybe we'll have him on. Elaine: He is huge and he was like let's talk about it. And so we started brainstorming over you know, burritos and we sit in town and I started telling him kind of my thoughts about you know, tanglewood needs this new idea and we need to serve women and brick and mortar. You know things are coming back. So I read all the time about consumer, you know the product sector and retail, and he was like I'm in, I think we could do it, I think we need to bring that to the customer, and so it just slowly started seeping into me and then I started going to market and he would come with me and finding all these unique lines, esoteric lines that nobody had heard of, like a lady from Copenhagen was the first person to bring her to the US and doing all these things where I was like I'm going to take a risk, and she did great. I mean, we just had three months of selling with her, but anyway. So just really leaning into this idea of finding these really unique lines, and it took us about a year. I mean we did a year of like negotiating the lease and meeting the contractors and coming up with the store idea, the space, and I'd love for you to come by and see it. Chris: I've got to come by, so you know, tell where is the store now. Elaine: So it's on Woodway and Voss, right across from Second Baptist Church, so literally kind of in the heart of Tanglewood residential area right by that Krabah's over there. Chris: Oh, perfect. Yeah, Everyone knows what that is, I know so. So you second go around. You opened just recently, like a couple months ago. Elaine: Yeah, open October 9th. So, yeah, what's today's? Chris: January 10th. So yeah, you've just been a few months Going. Well, I take it. Elaine: It's great. I mean it was just a total whirlwind because it's funny, I opened the store of course holiday time period it's like you know I'm trying to get press, I'm opening up during the busiest season of the you know the year and retail, and so it went great and I we beat all the goals that we had. But it's been also kind of a internal reset for me to kind of what is that balance for me, being an owner again but not losing kind of my sense of equanimity, if you will. Like I can go real strong, real singular into my career. And I've had to kind of really do a lot of self-awareness work about in Kaling this was a lot, so don't lose yourself in it and because you don't want to lose the joy in it. And so there's been, you know, even in the three months, there's been some setbacks that have happened already. There's been some huge wins that have happened already. I've had to hire a new team, and so you know I'm not going to lie and say, oh, it's just all like, oh, this perfect law, I mean it's been where. I'm like, oh shit, I got to fix that, I got to do that. But you know I'm doing it and I wouldn't be doing anything else. Chris: So how would you compare kind of starting the first one to starting the second one? Elaine: I'll tell you what you know. I want you to answer that, but I'll tell you you know. Chris: I remember when we were about to have a second child and I looked at someone and they're like oh, people think, oh, you got this, you know what you're doing. And I said you told me something you've done for the second time in your life and you felt like an expert, right? Oh, my God, it's so true, I mean it's been so. Elaine: It's so funny because the first time I was so young and you know, with youth comes a nice amount of ignorance, and so you have no idea what you're about to do or the consequences of what you're about to do, and you're like, yeah, I got this. You know, I'm going to put some little money in, we're going to start this thing. And I started getting handbags shipped to me from Brooklyn in my living room and I had a baby at the time and I just thought, oh, I'm going to figure this out. But when you're young, you know, you feel good, your body works, you're like I've got it. And then, as you age and you understand what really the consequences are of choices that you make, you become much more thoughtful and mindful and cautious about what you're going to actually do and the choices that you make in your life. And so edit was very mindfully thought out before I did it, before I signed that lease. But with that said, it's been a whirlwind, you know, and so, and I'm older and so I don't have the reserves. I'd really believe that I don't have the reserves that I had. So it's funny that you asked me that, because my new year goal for edit was simplification. I need to kind of pull back a little bit, simplify some of these. You know, I get real ahead of myself, you know, and kind of look at it through a clearer eyes. And how do I build a sustainable business with a digital footprint and a brick and mortar footprint and how do those seamlessly go together? And so it's really been about how do I make this something that is balanced and joyful. And even in the hard stuff I can see the joy and it doesn't get away from me, it doesn't go off the rails, you know, but it's hard, I mean. The second one isn't necessarily easier. Chris: No, it's just different. That makes sense to me, right? That's probably the best way to put it. And what a wonderful story, and you're just a joy to be with. Elaine: So we're going to go a little personal to wrap this thing up what was your first job. My first job was working at Sugar Creek Country Clubs tennis shop, but are you selling tennis clothes? Well, I was streaming rackets as a big tennis player. Chris: And. Elaine: I was a teenager, but I guess, if you're saying my first kind, of real job. Chris: that was the job. That's what I was looking for, Like what you did when you had your first job to make a paycheck. Elaine: The tennis. I worked at the tennis shop. Chris: And so my favorite question, especially for the lifelong Texans, is what do you? Prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue. Elaine: Tex-Mex. Chris: Okay, no hesitation. Finally, we'll wrap this sort of on this question. If you could take a 30 day sabbatical, where would you go and what would you do? Elaine: I go to Santa Fe, I love Santa Fe, okay, and I would do grounding, healing nature Kind of. I feel like that place kind of resets your soul and so I'd engage in being outside and being in the food, the food there is so wonderful, but yeah, I do Santa Fe. Chris: Perfect, Elaine. Thank you so much for taking the time. Congratulations on the second go round with edit. Elaine: There we go, it's going to be successful right. Chris: So thank you, and we look forward to coming to the store and maybe we'll do it in there. Elaine: Oh, I'd love it, and thank you, I'm grateful. Special Guest: Elaine Turner.

Our caller this week, Maya, really thinks about how she cooks. She's identified more than a dozen types of recipes that she knows she can rely on, and even adapt. But, she's in search of more like these. She wants more meal frameworks that will allow her to think outside the bounds of following a recipe. So, Chris taps Claire Saffitz to help Maya discover more meal types to add to her repertoire.Recipes featured in this episode:CHRIS: One pan chicken thighs with burst tomatoes, harissa, and fetaCLAIRE: -Cold Noodles i.e.: Cold Miso-Sesame Noodles, Ramen with Steak and Sesame-Ginger Dressing, Rice Noodles with Shrimp and Coconut-Lime Dressing, Udon with Chicken and Garlicky Peanut Dressing, Soba with Tofu and Miso-Mustard Dressing- Cutlet & a Salad: i.e. Cutlet Story, japanese curry w Chicken Katsu

If you want to know the 5 Most Common Recovery Roadblocks with Chris Tronsdon (an incredible anxiety and OCD therapist), you are in the right place. Today Chris and I will go over the 5 Most common anxiety, depression, & OCD roadblocks and give you 6 highly effective treatment strategies you can use today.  Kimberley: Welcome everybody. We have the amazing Chris Trondsen here with us today. Thank you for coming, Chris. Chris: Yes, Kim, thanks for having me. I'm super excited about being here today and just about this topic. Kimberley: Yes. So, for those of you who haven't attended one of the IOCDF Southern California conferences, we had them in Southern California. We have presented on this exact topic, and it was so well received that we wanted to make sure that we were spreading it out to all the folks that couldn't come.  You and I spoke about the five most common anxiety & OCD treatment roadblocks, and then we gave six strategic solutions. But today, we're actually broadening it because it applies to so many people. We're talking about the five most common anxiety treatment roadblocks, with still six solutions and six strategies they can use. Thank you for coming on because it was such a powerful presentation. Chris: No, I agree. I mean, we had standing room only, and people really came up to us afterwards and just said how impactful it was. And then we actually redid it at the International OCD Foundation, and it was one of the best-attended talks at the event. And then we got a lot of good feedback, and people kept messaging me like, “I want to hear it. I couldn't go to the conference.” I'd play clips for my group, and they're like, “When is it going to be a podcast?” I was like, “I'll ask Kim.” I'm glad you said yes because I do believe for anybody going through any mental health condition, this list is bound, and I think the solutions will really be something that can be a game changer in their recovery. Kimberley: Absolutely, absolutely. I love it mostly because, and we're going to get straight into these five roadblocks, they're really about mindset and going into recovery. I think it's something we're not talking about a lot. We're talking about a lot of treatment, a lot of skills, and tools, but the strategies and understanding those roadblocks can be so important. Chris: Yeah. I did a talk for a support group. They had asked me to come and speak, and I just got this idea to talk about mindset. I did this presentation on mindset, and people were like, “Nobody's talking about it.” In the back of my head, I'm like, “Kim and I did.” But we're the only ones. Because I do think so many people get the tools, right? The CBT tools, they get the ERP tools, the mindfulness edition, and people really find the tools that work for them. But when I really think of my own personal recovery with multiple mental health diagnoses, it was always about mindset. And that's what I like about our talk today. It's universal for anyone going through any mental health condition, anxiety base, and it's that mindset that I think leads to recovery. It shouldn't be the other way around. The tools are great, but the mindset needs to be there. Kimberley: Yeah. We are specifically speaking to the folks who are burnt out, feeling overwhelmed, feeling a lack of hope of recovery. They really need a kickstart, because that was actually the big title of the presentation. It was really addressing those who are just exhausted with the process and need a little bit of a strategy and mindset shift. Chris: Yeah. I don't want to compare, but I broke my ankle when I was hiking in Hawaii, and I have two autoimmune diseases. Although those ailments have caused problems, especially the autoimmune, when I think back to my mental health journey, that always wore me out more because it's with you all the time, 24/7. It's your mental health. When my autoimmune diseases act up, I'm exhausted, I'm burnt out, but it's temporary. Or my ankle, when it acts up, I have heating pads, I have things I can do, but your brain is with you 24/7. I do believe that's why a lot of people resonate with this messaging—they are exhausted. They're busting their butt in treatment, but they're tired and hitting roadblocks. And that's why this talk really came about. Kimberley: Yeah, exactly. All right, let's get into it here in a second. I just want to give one metaphor with that. I once had a client many years ago give the metaphor. She said, “I feel like I'm running a marathon and my whole family are standing on the out, like on the sidelines, and they're all clapping, but I'm just like faceplant down in the middle of the road.” She's like, “I'm trying to get up, I'm trying to get up, and everyone's telling me, ‘Come on, you can do it.' It's so hard because you're so exhausted and you've already run a whole bunch of miles.” And so I really think about that kind of metaphor for today. If people are feeling that way, hopefully they can take away some amazing nuggets of information.  Chris: Absolutely. That's a good visual. Faceplant. Kimberley: It was such a great and powerful visual because then I understood this client's experience. Like, “Oh, okay. You're really tired. You're really exhausted.” ROADBLOCK #1: YOU BEAT YOURSELF UP! Okay, let's get into it. So, I'm going to go first because the number one roadblock we talked about, not that these are in any particular order, but the one we came up first was that you beat yourself up. This is a major roadblock to recovery for so many disorders. You beat yourself up for having the disorder. You beat yourself up for not coping with it as well as you could. You beat yourself up if you have OCD for having these intrusive thoughts that you would never want to have. Or you're beating yourself up because you don't have motivation because you have, let's say, some coexisting depression.  The important thing to know there is, while beating yourself up feels productive, it might feel like you're motivating yourself, or you may feel like you deserve it. It actually only makes it harder. It only makes it feel like you've got this additional thing. Again, a lot of my patients—let's use the marathon example—might yell at themselves the whole way through the marathon, but it's not a really great experience if you're doing that, and it takes a lot of energy.  SOLUTION #1: SELF-COMPASSION So what we offered here as a strategic solution is self-compassion—trying to motivate and encourage yourself using kindness. If you're going through a hard day, maybe, just if you've never tried this before, trial what it would be like to encourage yourself with kind words or asking for support, asking for help so that you're not burning all that extra energy, making it so much harder on yourself, increasing your suffering. Because I often say to patients, the more you suffer, the more you actually deserve self-compassion. It's not the other way around. It's not that the more you suffer, the less you deserve it. Do you have any thoughts on that, Chris? Chris: Oh yeah. I would say I see that across the board with my clients, this harshness, and there's this good intention behind it, this idea that if I can just bully myself into recovery. I always try to remind clients that anxiety-based disorders, it's a part of our bodies as well. Our brain is a part of our body, just like our arm, our tibia, our leg, all these other bones, but there's a lack of self-empathy that we have for ourselves, as if it's something that we're choosing to do. Someone with a broken leg doesn't wake up in the morning and get mad at themselves that their leg is still broken. They have understanding, and they're working on their exercises to heal. It's the same with these disorders.  So, the reason I love self-compassion is when we go and step in to help one of our friends, we use a certain tone, we use certain words, we tap into their strengths, we use encouragement because we know that method is going to be what boosts them up and helps them get through that rough patch. But for some reason, when it's ourselves, we completely abandon everything we know that's supportive, and we talk to ourselves in a way that I almost picture like a really negative boot camp instructor, like in the military, just yelling and screaming into submission. The other thing is when we're beating ourselves up like that, we're more likely to tap into our unhelpful habits. We're more likely to shut down and isolate, which we see a lot in BDD, social anxiety, et cetera. But that self-compassion isn't like a fake pop culture support. It's really tapping into meeting yourself where you're at, giving yourself some understanding, and tapping into the strategies that have worked in the past when you're in a low moment.  I know sometimes people are like, “I don't know how to do that,” but you're doing it to everybody else in your life. Now it's time to give yourself that same self-compassion that you've been giving to everybody important to you. Kimberley: Yeah, and we actually have a few episodes on Your Anxiety Toolkit on exactly how to embrace self-compassion, like how that might actually look. So, if people are really needing more information there, I can add in the show notes some links to some resources there as well.  ROADBLOCK #2: THERE WILL BE HARD DAYS  Okay. Now, Chris, can you tell us about the second most common or another common anxiety roadblock around this idea that there will be hard days? Chris: There's always these great images if you Google about what people think recovery will look like versus what recovery looks like. I love those images because there is this idea. We see a lot of perfectionism in anxiety disorders. In OCD, we see perfectionism. So, this idea of, like, I should be here and I should easily scoot to the end. It's not going to be like that; it's bumpy, it's ups and downs. We know so much factors into or impact how our mental health disorder shows up. We can't always control our triggers. Sometimes if we haven't slept well or there's a lot of change in our life, we could have more anxiety. So, it's going to ebb and flow.  So, when we have this fixed mindset of like, it has to be perfect, there has to be absolutely no bumps on the road, no turbulence, we're going to set ourselves up for failure because the day we have a hard day, we want to completely shut down. So I really believe, in this case, the solution is thinking bigger. If you're thinking day to day, sometimes if you're too in it, you're dealing with depression, you're really feeling bad, you skipped school because you have a presentation, social anxiety is acting up. You think bigger picture. Why am I here? Why am I doing this? Why have I sought out treatment? Listen to this podcast. What am I trying to accomplish?  SOLUTION #2: KNOW YOUR WHY I know for me in my own recovery, knowing my why was so important. There were certain things in my life that I found important to achieve, and I kept that as the figurative carrot in front of the mule to get me to go. So, that way, if I had a rough day, I thought bigger picture. What do I need to do today to make sure that I meet my goals? And so, I believe everybody needs to know their why.  Now, it doesn't have to be grandiose. Some people want to build a school and teach kids in underprivileged countries. Amazing why. But other people are sometimes like, “I just want to be able to make my own choices today and not feel like I base them out of anxiety.” There's no right or wrong why, but if you can know what beacon you're going to, it really helps you get through those hard days.  What about for you? When we talk about this, what comes up for you? Kimberley: Well, I think that for me personally, the why is a really important mindset shift because often I can get to this sort of, like you said, perfectionistic why. Like, the goal is to have no anxiety, or the goal is to have no bad days. We see on social media these very relaxed people who just seem to go with the flow, and that's your goal. But I have to often with myself do a little reality check and go, “Okay, are you doing recovery to get there? Because that goal might be setting you up for constant disappointment and failure. That mightn't be your genetic makeup.”  I'm never going to be like the go-with-the-flow Kimberley. That's just not who I am. But if I can instead shift it to the why of like, what do I value? What are the things I want to be able to do despite having anxiety in my life? Or, despite having a hard day, like you said, how do I want that to look? And once I can get to that imagery, then I have a really clear picture. So, when I do have a bad day, it doesn't feel so defeating, like what's the point I give up, because the goal was realistic. Chris: For me, a big part of my why in recovery, once I started getting into a place where I was managing the disorders I was dealing with—OCD, body dysmorphic disorder, I had a lot of generalized anxiety, and major depressive disorder—I was like, “I need to give back. There's not people my age talking about this. There's not enough treatment providers.” There was somewhere, like in the middle of my treatment, that I was like, “I don't know how I'm going to advocate. I don't know what that's going to look like, but I have to give back.” And so, on those hard days when I would normally want to just like, “Well, I don't care that it's noon, I'm shutting it down, I'm going into my bed, I'm just going to sleep the rest of the day,” reminding myself like there's people out there suffering that can't find providers, that can't find treatment, may not even know they have these disorders. I have to be one of the voices in the community that really advocates and gets people education and resources. And so, I didn't let myself get in bed. I looked at the day as quarters. Okay, the morning and the afternoon's a little rough, but I still have evening and night. Let me turn it around. I have to go because I have this big goal, this ambitious dream. I really want to do it. So that bigger why kept me just on track to push through hard days. ROADBLOCK #3: YOU RUN OUT OF STAMINA Kimberley: Amazing. I love that so much. All right. The third roadblock that we see is that people run out of stamina. I actually think this is one that really ties into what we were just talking about. Imagine we're running a marathon. If you're sprinting for the first 20 miles, you probably won't finish the race. Or even if you sprint the first two miles, you probably won't finish the marathon.  One of the things is—and actually, I'll go straight to the strategy and the thing we want you to practice—we have to learn to pace ourselves throughout recovery. As I said, if you sprint the first few miles, you will fall flat on your face. You're already dealing with so much. As you said, having a mental health struggle is the most exhausting thing that I've ever been through. It requires such of your attention. It requires such restraint from not engaging in it and doing the treatment and using the tools. It's a lot of work, and I encourage and congratulate anyone who's trying. The fact that you're trying and you're experimenting with what works and what doesn't, and you're following your homework of your clinician or the workbook that you've used—that's huge. But pacing yourself is so important. So, what might that look like? Often, people, students of mine from CBT School, will say, “I go all out. I do a whole day of exposures and I practice response prevention, and I just go so hard that the next day I am wiped. I can't get out of bed. I don't want to do it anymore. It was way too much. I flooded myself with anxiety.” So, that's one way I think that it shows up. I'll often say, “Okay, let's not beat yourself up for that.” We'll just use that as data that that pace didn't work. We want to find a rhythm and a pace that allow you to recover. It's sort of like this teeter-totter. We call it in Australia a seesaw. You want to do the work, but not to the degree where you faceplant down on the concrete. We want to find that balance.  I know for me, when I was recovering from postural orthostatic tachycardic syndrome, which is a chronic illness that I had, it was so hard because the steps to recovery was exercise, but it was like literally walking to the corner and back first, and then walking half a block, and then walking three-quarters of a block, and then having my husband pick me up, then walking one block. And that's all I was able to do without completely faceplanting the next day, literally and figuratively.  My mind kept saying to me, “You should be able to go faster. Everybody else is going faster. Everyone else can walk a mile or a block. So you should be able to.” And so, I would push myself too hard, and then I'd have to start all over again because I was comparing myself to someone who was not in my position.  SOLUTION #3: PACE YOURSELF So, try to find a pace that works for you, and do not compare your pace with me or Chris or someone in your support group, or someone you see on social media. You have to find and test a pace that works for you. Do you have any thoughts, Chris? Chris: Yeah. I would say in this one, and you alluded to it, that comparison, that is going to get you in this roadblock because you're going to be looking to your left and your right. Why is that person my age working and I'm not? It's not always comparing yourself. Sometimes, like you said, it is people in your support group. It's people that you see advocating for the disorder you may have. But sometimes people even look at celebrities or they'll look at friends from college, and can I do that? The comparison never motivates you, it never boosts you; it just makes you feel less than. That's why one of my favorite quotes is, “Chase the dream, not the competition.” It's really finding a timeline that works best for you.  I get why people have this roadblock. As somebody who's lived through multiple mental health disorder diagnoses, it's like, once we find the treatment, we want to escalate to the finish line, and we'll push ourselves in treatment sometimes too much. And then we have one of those days where we can't even get out of bed because we're just beat up, we're exhausted, and it's counterproductive.  I wanted to add one thing too. The recovery part may not even be what you're doing with your clinician in a session that you are not pacing yourself with. My biggest pacing problem was after recovery, not that the disorders magically went away, they were in remission, I was working on doing great, but it was like, I went to martial arts, tennis, learned Spanish, started volunteering at an animal shelter, went back to school, got a job, started dating. It was so much. Because I felt like I was behind, I needed to push myself.  The problem that started to happen was I was focusing less on the enjoyable process of dating or getting a job, or going back to school. I was so fixated on the finish line. “I need to be there, I need to be there. What's next? What's next?” I got burnt out from that, and I was not enjoying anything I was doing.  So, I would say even after you're managing your disorder, be careful about not pacing yourself, even in that recovery process of getting back into the lifestyle that you want. Kimberley: Yeah, absolutely. I would add too, just as a side point, anyone who is managing a mental health issue or an anxiety disorder, we do also have to fill our cup with the things that fill our hearts. I know that sounds very cliche and silly, but in order to pace ourselves and to have the motivation and to use the skills, we do have to find a balance of not just doing all the hard things, but making sure you schedule time to rest and eat and drink and see friends if that fills your cup, or read if that fills your cup. So, I think it's also finding a rhythm and a balance of the things that fill your cup and identifying that, yes, recovery is hard. It will deplete your stores of energy. So, finding things that fill that cup for you is important.   Chris: Well, you just made a good point too. In my recovery, all those things you mentioned, I thought of those as like weakness, like I just wasted an hour reading. Sometimes even with friends. That one, not as much, because I saw value in friendship. But if I just watched a movie or relaxed, or even just hung out with friends, it felt like a waste. I'm like, “How dare I am behind everybody else? I should be working. I should be this. I should move up.” A lot of should statements, a lot of perfectionist expectations of myself.  So, the goal for me or the treatment for me wasn't to then go to the other extreme and just give up everything; it was really to ask myself, like you said, how can I fill my cup in ways that are important and see value and getting a breakfast burrito with a friend and talking for three hours and not thinking like, “Oh, I should have been this because I got to get my degree.” I'm glad that you brought that up. I always think of like we're overflowing our cup with mental health conditions. We have to be able to have those offsets that drain the cup so we have a healthy balance. So, a great point. ROADBLOCK #4: NOT OWNING YOUR RECOVERY Kimberley: I agree. So important. Would you tell us about owning your recovery? Because you have a really great story with this. Chris: Yeah. People ask me all the time how I got better. A lot of people with body dysmorphic disorder struggle to get better. Obviously, we know that with obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depressive disorder, et cetera. So, a lot of people will ask sometimes, and I always say to them, if I had to come up with one thing, it was because I made my mental health recovery number one. I felt that it was like the platform that I was building my whole life on. I'm so bad with the-- what is it? The house, the-- I'm not a builder.  Kimberley: Like the foundation. Chris: Thank you. Clearly, I'm not going to be making tools tomorrow or making things with tools. But yeah, like a house has to have a nice foundation. You would never build a house on a rocky side of the mountain. And so, I had to give up a lot, like most of us do, as we start to get worse. I became housebound and I dropped out of college, and I gave up a job. I was working in the entertainment industry, and I really enjoyed it. I was going to film school, and I was happy. I had to give all that up because I couldn't even leave my house because of the disorder.  SOLUTION #5: MAKE YOUR RECOVERY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING So, when I was going to treatment and I was really starting to see it work, I was clear to that finish line of what I needed to do. So I made it the most important thing. It wasn't just me; it was my support system. My treatment was about a four-hour round trip from my house, so my mom and I would meet up every day. We drive up to LA. I go to my OCD therapist, and I'd go to my psychiatrist and then my BDD therapist and support group, and then come home. There's times I was exhausted, I wanted to give up, I was over it, but I never ever, ever put it to number two or three. I almost had this top three list in my head, and number one was always my recovery. My mom too, I mean, when she talks, she'll always say it's the most important thing. If my job was going to fire me because I couldn't come in because I had to take my kid on Wednesdays to treatment, I was going to get fired and find a new job. We just had to make this important.   As I was getting better, there were certain opportunities that came back to me from my jobs or from school. My therapist and I and my mom just decided, “Let's hold off on this. Let's really, really put effort into the treatment. You're doing so well.” One of the things that I see all the time, my mom and I run a very successful family and loved ones group. A lot of times, the parents aren't really making it the priority for their kids or the kids, or the people with the disorders aren't really making it a priority. It's totally understandable if there's things like finances and things, barriers. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when people have access to those things, they're just not owning it. Sometimes they're not owning it because they're not taking it seriously or not making it important. Or other times, people are expecting someone else to get them better.  I loved having a team. I didn't have a big team. I came from nothing. It was a very small team. I probably needed residential or something bigger. I only really had my mom's support, but we all leaned on each other. But I always knew it was me in the driver's seat. At the end of the day, my therapist couldn't save me, my mom couldn't save me, they couldn't come to my house and pull me out of bed or do an exposure for me, or have me go out in public during the daytime because of BDD. I had to be the one to do it. I could lean on them as support systems and therapists are there for, but at the end of the day, it was my choice. I had to do it. When my head hit the pillow, I had to make sure that I did everything I possibly could that day to recover.  When I took ownership, it actually gave me freedom. I wasn't waiting for someone to come along. I wasn't focusing on other things. I made it priority number one. I truly believe that that was the thing that got me better. Once again, didn't have a lot of resources, leaned a lot on self-help books and stuff because I needed a higher level of care, but there was none and we couldn't afford it. I don't want anyone to hear this podcast and think, “Well, I can't find treatment in my area.” That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying, whatever you have access to, own it, make it a priority, and definitely be in that leader's seat because that's going to be what's going to get you better. Kimberley: Yeah, for sure. I think too when I used to work as a personal trainer, I would say to them, “You can come to training once a week, but that once a week isn't going to be what crosses you across that finish line.” You know what I mean? It is the work you do in the other 23 hours of that day and the other seven days of the week. I think that is true. If you're doing and you're dabbling in treatment, but it's not the main priority, that is a big reason that can hold you back. I think it's hard because it's not fair that you have to make it priority number one, but it's so necessary that you do.  I really want to be compassionate and empathize with how unfair it is that you have to make this thing a priority when you see other people, again, making their social life their priority or their hobby their priority. It sucks. But this mindset shift, this recalibration of this has to be at the top. When it gets to being at the top, I do notice, as a clinician, that's when people really soar in their recovery. Chris: Yeah. We had a very honest conversation with my BDD therapist, my OCD therapist, and my psychiatrist, and they're like, “You need a higher level of care. We understand you can't afford it. There's also a lot of waiting lists.” They're like, “You're really going to have to put in the work in between sessions. You're supposed to be in therapy every day.” We just couldn't. All we can afford is once a week. They said, “Look, when you're not in our session, you need to be the one.”  So, for instance, with depression, my psychiatrist is like, “Okay, you're obviously taking the medication, but you need to get up at the same time every day. Open up all your blinds, go upstairs, eat breakfast on the balcony, get ready, leave the house from nine to five.” I didn't have a job. “But you need to be out of the house. You need to be in nature. You need to do all these things.” I never wanted to, but I did it. Or with my OCD and BDD recovery, I didn't want to go out in public. I felt like it looked horrendous. I felt like people were judging me, but I did. Instead of going to the grocery store at 2:00 in the morning, I was going at noon. When everyone's there for OCD, it was like, I didn't want to sit in public places. I didn't want to be around people that I felt I could potentially harm.  My point is like every single day, I was doing work, I was tracking it, I was keeping track, and I had to do that because I needed to do that in order to get better based on the setup that I had.  I do want to also say a caveat. I always have the biggest empathy for people or sympathy for people that are a CEO of a company or like a parent and have a lot of children, or it's like you're busy working all day and you're trying to balance stuff. I mean, the only good thing that came from being housebound is I didn't have a lot of responsibilities. I didn't have a family. I wasn't running a company. I wasn't working. So, I did have the free time to do the treatment. So, I have such sympathy for people that are parents or working at a company, or trying to start their own small business and trying to do treatment too. But I promise you, you don't have to put your recovery first forever. Really dive into it, get to that place where you're really, really stable. It'll still be a priority, but then you will be a better parent, a better employee, a better friend once you've really got your mental health to a level that you can start to support others. You may need to support yourself first, like the analogy with a mask on the plane. ROADBLOCK #5: YOU HAVE A FIXED MINDSET Kimberley: Agreed. That's such an important point. All right, we're moving on to roadblock number five. This is yours again, Chris. Tell us about the importance of specific mindsets, particularly a fixed mindset being the biggest roadblock. Chris: One of the things that makes me the most sad about people having a mental health condition because of how insidious they are is it starts to have people lose their sense of identity. It has them start to almost re-identify who they are, and it becomes a very fixed mindset. So, if you have social anxiety or social phobia, it's like, “Oh, I'm somebody that's not good around people. I say embarrassing things. I never know what kind of conversation to lead with. I should probably just not be around people.” Or, let's say generalized anxiety. “Deadlines really caused me too much strain. I can't really go back to school.” BDD. “I'm an unattractive person. Nobody wants to date me. I'm unlovable.”   We get into these fixed mindsets and we start to identify with them, and inevitably, that person's life becomes smaller and smaller and smaller. So, the more they identify with it, the more that they become isolated from others, and they have this very fixed mindset. I think of like OCD, for instance, isn't really about guidelines; it's all about rules. This is how things are supposed to be. What happens is when I work with a client specifically, somebody that's pretty severe, it's trying to get them to see the value in treatment and to even tap into their own personal values is really difficult. It's like, “Treatment doesn't work. I've tried all the medications. I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm just not somebody that can get better.” SOLUTION #5: GROWTH MINDSET What I tell clients instead is, “Let's be open. Let's be curious. Let's move into a growth mindset. Let's focus on learning, obtaining education, being open to new concepts. Look, when you were younger and the OCD didn't really attack you, or when you were younger and you didn't deal with social anxiety, you were having friends, you had birthday parties, you were going to school, and everything. Maybe that's the real you, and it's not that you lost it. You just have this disorder that's blocked you from it.” And so, when clients become open and curious and willing to learn, willing to try new things, and to get out of their comfort zone, that's where the growth really happens.  If you're listening to this podcast or watching it right now and you're determined like, “This isn't working; nothing can help me,” that fixed mindset is never something that's going to get you from where you are to where you want to be. You have to have that growth, that learning, that trying new things, expanding.  I always tell clients, “If you try something with your therapist and it doesn't work, awesome. That's one other thing that doesn't work. Move on to something else.” That openness. What I always love after treatment is people are like, “I am social. I do love to be around people. I am somebody who likes animals. I just was avoiding animals because of harm thoughts.” People start to get back into who they really are as soon as they start to be more open to recovery. Kimberley: Yeah, for sure. The biggest fixed mindset thought that I hear is, “I can't handle it.” That thought alone gets in the way of recovery so many times. We go to do an exposure, “I can't handle this.” Or, “What if I have a panic attack? I cannot handle panic attacks.” It's so fixed. So I often agree with you. I will often say, this work, this mental health work, or this human work that we do is shifting the way we see ourselves and life as an experiment. We always have these black-and-white beliefs like “I can't handle this” or “I can't do this. I can't get in an elevator. I can't speak public speaking,” or whatever it might be. But let's be curious. Like you said, let's use it as an experiment. Let's try, and we'll see. Maybe it doesn't go great. That's okay, like you said, but then we know we have data, and then we have information on what got in the way, and we have some information.  I think that even just being able to identify when you're in a fixed mindset can be all you need just to be like, “Oh, okay, I'm having a very black-and-white fixed mindset.” Learning how to laugh and giggle at the way our brain just gets so determined and black-and-white, like you can't do this, as you said, I think is so important because, like you said, once you get to recovery, then you go on to live your life and actually do the things that you dream, the dream that you're talking about. It might be you want to get a master's degree or you might want to go for a job, or you want to go on a date. You're going to be able to use that strong mindset for any situation in life. It applies to anything that you're going to conquer.  I always say to clients, if you've done treatment for mental health, you are so much more prepared than every student in college because they haven't gone through, they haven't had to learn those skills. Chris: Yeah, no, exactly. I remember like my open mindset was one of the assets I had in recovery. I remember going to therapy and being like, “I'm just going to listen. These people clearly know what they're doing. They've helped people like me. Why would it be any different?” And I was open. I can see the difference with clients that have a more growth mindset. They come in, they're scared. They're worried. They've been doing something for 10, 15, 16 years, and they're like, “Why is this guy going to tell me to try to do different things or to think different or have different thinking patterns?” But they're open. I always see those people hit that finish line first. It's the clients that come and shut down. The family system has been supporting this like learned helplessness. Nobody really wants to rock the boat. Everything shut down and closed. It's like prying it open, as most of the work. And then we finally get to the work, but we could have gotten there quicker. Everybody's at their own pace, but I really hope that people hear this, though, are focused on that openness. You were talking about like people thinking they can't handle it. The other thing I hear sometimes is people just don't think they deserve it. “I just don't even deserve to get better.” You do. You do. That's what I love about my job the most. Everybody that comes into my office, and I'm like, “You deserve a better life than you're living. Whatever it is you want to do. You want to be a vet. How many animals are you going to save just by getting into being a vet? You got to do it.” My heart breaks a little bit when people have been dealing with mental health for long enough that they start to believe they don't even deserve to get better.  SOLUTION #6: IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY TO DO HARD THINGS Kimberley: I love that. So, we had five roadblocks, and we've covered it, but we promised six strategies. I want to be the one to deliver the last one, which everyone who listens already knows what I'm going to say, but I'm going to say it for the sake that it's so important for your recovery, which is, it's a beautiful day to do hard things. It is so important that you shift, as we talked about in the roadblock number one, you shift your mindset away from “I can't do hard things” to “It's okay to do hard things.” It doesn't mean you've failed. Life can be hard.  I say to all my patients, life is 50/50 for everybody. It's 50% easy and 50% hard. I think some people have it harder than others. But the ones who seem to do really well and have that grit and that survivor's mindset are the ones who aren't destroyed by the day when it is hard. They're willing to do the hard thing. They're okay to march into uncertainty. They're willing to do the hard thing for the payoff. They're willing to take a short-term discomfort for the long-term relief or the long-term payout. I think that mindset can change the game for people, particularly if you think of it like a marathon. Like, I just have to be able to finish this marathon, I'm going to do the hard thing, and think of it that way. There'll be hills, there'll be valleys, there'll be times where you want to give up, but can I just do one hard thing and then the next hard thing, and then the next hard thing? Do you have any thoughts on that? Chris: I'm glad that this is the message that you put out there. I'd say, obviously, when I think of Kim Quinlan as a friend, I think of other things and all the fun we've had together. But as a colleague, I always think of both. Obviously, self-compassion. But this idea of it's a beautiful day to do hard things, I like it because we've always talked about doing hard things as this negative thing before you came along, and by adding this idea of it's a beautiful day. When I look at all the hard things I did in my own recovery, or I see clients do hard things, there's this feeling of accomplishment, there's this feeling of growth, there's this feeling of greatness that we get. Just like you were saying, beyond the mental health conditions that I dealt with, when I start getting into real life after the mental health conditions now are more in recovery, every time I choose to do hard things, there's always such a good payoff. I was convinced I would never be able to get through school and get a degree and become a licensed therapist because I struggled with school with my perfectionism. It was difficult for me to get back in there and to humble myself and say, “Hey, you may flop and fail.” But now I'm a licensed therapist because of that willingness to do hard things.  I could give a plethora of examples, but I want people to hear that doing hard things is your way of saying, “I believe in myself. I trust myself that I can accomplish things, and I'm going to tap into my support system if I need to, but I am determined, determined, determined to push myself to a level that I may not think I can.” I love when clients do that, and they always come in, they're like, “I'm so proud of myself, I can't wait to tell you what I did this weekend.” I love that. So, always remember hard things come with beautiful, beautiful, beautiful outcomes and accomplishments. Kimberley: Yeah. I think the empowerment piece, when clients do scary, hard things, or they feel their hard feelings, or they do an exposure, they'll often come in and be like, “I felt like I could do anything. I had no idea about the empowerment that comes from doing hard things.” I think we've been trained to think that if we just avoid it, we then will feel confident and strong, but it's actually the opposite. The most empowered you'll ever feel is right after you've done a really, really hard thing, even if it doesn't go perfectly. Chris: Yeah, and so much learning comes out of it. That's why I always tell clients too, going back to one of our first roadblocks, beating yourself up prevents the learning. Let's say you try something and it doesn't go well. I was talking to a colleague of ours who I really, really like. She was telling me how her first treatment center failed. Now she's doing really well for herself down in San Diego. She's like, “I just didn't know things, and I just did things wrong, and I learned from it, and now I'm doing well.”  It's like, whenever we look at something not going the way we'd like as an opportunity to learn and collect data, it just makes us that much better when we try it the other time. A lot of times these anxiety disorders were originally before treatment, hopefully trying to find ways to avoid our way through life—tough words—and trying to figure out, like, how can I always be small and avoid and still get to where I want to be? When people hear this from your podcast—it's a beautiful day to do hard things—I hope that they recognize that you don't have to live an avoidant lifestyle, an isolated lifestyle anymore. Really challenging yourself and doing hard things is actually going to be so rewarding. It's incredible what outcomes come with it. Kimberley: Amazing. Well, Chris, thank you so much for doing this with me again. We finally stamped it into the podcast, which makes me so happy. Tell us where people can hear about you, get in contact with you, and learn more about what you do. Chris: I am really active in the International OCD Foundation. I'm one of their board members. I also am one of their lead advocates, just meeting as somebody with the disorder. I speak on it. Then I lead some of their special interest groups. The Body Dysmorphic Disorder Special Interest Group is one of them, but I lead about four of them. One of their affiliates, OCD Southern California, I am Vice President of OCD SoCal and a board member. We do a lot of events here locally that Kim is part of, but also some virtual events that you could be a part of. And then, as a clinician, I'm a licensed clinician in Costa Mesa, California. I currently work at The Gateway Institute. You can find me either by email at my name, which is never easy to spell. So, ChrisTrondsen@GatewayOCD.com, or the best thing is on social media, whether it's Instagram, Facebook, or X, I guess we're calling it now. Just @christrondsen. You could DM me. I always like to hear from people and get people's support, and anything I can do to support people. I always love it. Kimberley: Oh my gosh, you're such a light in the community, truly. A light of hope and a light of wisdom and knowledge. I want to say, because I don't tell you this enough as your friend and as your colleague, thank you, thank you for the hope that you put out there and the information you put out there. It is so incredibly helpful for people. So, thank you. Chris: I appreciate that. I forgot to say one thing real quick. Every first, third, and fourth Wednesday of the month at 9 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on the IOCDF, all of their platforms, including iocdf.org/live, I do a free live stream with Dr. Liz McIngvale from Texas, and we have great guests like Kim Quinlan on, so please listen. But thank you for saying that. I always try to put as much of myself in the community, and you never know if people are receiving it well. I want to throw the same thing to you. I mean, this podcast has been incredible for so many. I always play some of this stuff for my clients. A lot of clients are looking for podcasts. So, thanks for all that you do. I'm really excited about this episode because I think it's something that we touch so many people. So, now to share it on a bigger scale, I'm excited about it. But thank you for your kind words. You're amazing. It's all mutual. Kimberley: Thank you. You're welcome back anytime. Chris: And we're going to get Greek food soon. It's funny [inaudible] I'm telling you. It's life-changing. Thanks, Kim. Listen to other episodes. Kimberley: Thank you.

If you missed the first episode with thoughtbot Incubator Program partcipants and founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito of Goodz, you can go here first (https://www.giantrobots.fm/s3e2incubatorgoodz) to catch up! Startup founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito are participating in thoughtbot's eight-week incubator program. Mike, with a background in the music industry, and Chris, experienced in physical computing and exhibit development, are collaborating on a startup that creates physical objects linked to digital content, primarily in music. Their goal is to enhance the connection between tangible and digital experiences, starting with a product that resembles a mixtape, using NFC technology for easy access to digital playlists. This project is unique within the thoughtbot incubator as it's the first pure consumer product and involves both physical and digital elements. The team is engaged in user interviews and market validation, with the aim of launching a physical product with a digital backend. They are exploring various marketing strategies for the product and are in the process of building its technical backend. Transcript: LINDSEY: All right. I'm going to kick us off here. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in. We're doing our first update with two founders that are now going through the Startup incubator at thoughtbot. thoughtbot, if you're not familiar, product design and development consultancy. We'll help you on your product and make your team a success. One of the very fun ways we do that is through the startup thoughtbot incubator, which is an eight-week program. So, with us today, I myself am Lindsey Christensen, marketing for thoughtbot. We also have Jordyn Bonds, who is our Director of Product Strategy and runs the thoughtbot incubator. And then, as I mentioned, we've got two new founders who are going to tell us a little bit about themselves and what they're working on. Mike Rosenthal, let's kick off with you. Can you tell us a little bit about maybe your background and what brings you to present day? MIKE: Sure. First of, thanks for having us. It's been a lot of fun doing this over the last [inaudible 01:03]; it's only two weeks, two and a half weeks, something like that. It feels like a lot more. I come from a music industry background, so worked in sort of marketing and strategy for artists for a long time; worked with a band called OK Go back, sort of starting in 2009 or so. I did a lot of early kind of viral music video stuff. And we were sort of early to the idea of sort of leveraging fan engagement and revenue, honestly, kind of beyond sort of just selling their music and touring, so sort of exploring other ways that artists can make money and connect with their fans and was with those guys for five years. And then, I went on and worked at an artist management company in Brooklyn called Mick Management and ran the marketing department there, so doing similar type of work but for a roster of 2025 major label bands. And so, really got to see fan engagement on all different levels, from really large bands down to baby bands who were just getting started. And then, yeah, started my first startup in 2018, so doing sort of fan engagement work, and NFTs, and blockchain-type stuff working with bands, but then also sports and entertainment properties. Yeah, that kind of brings me here. So, always been sort of on the music side of things, which ties into a lot of what Chris and I are working on now, but more generally, sort of fan engagement and how to, you know, drive revenue and engagement for artists and deliver value for fans. LINDSEY: Very interesting. All right, Chris, going to head over to you. Chris Cerrito, can you tell us a bit about your background? And it sounds like yours and Mike's paths; this isn't the first time you've crossed. CHRIS: No. Mike and I have been working together since 2007, I believe. Yeah, that's a great place to start. I've always been kind of a maker and a tinkerer, always been interested in art materials, how things are put together. And that kind of culminated at grad school, where Mike and I met at NYU, where we both studied physical computing and human-computer interaction, making weird things that kind of changed the way that people interact and play with technology in their day-to-day lives. I think the first project he and I worked on together was a solar robotic band that we played with light in front of a bunch of people. It was very wonderful and confusing at the same time. After grad school, I was lucky enough to become a resident artist and then an exhibit developer at a museum in San Francisco called the Exploratorium, which is a museum of science, art, and human perception. I spent ten years there working on exhibits teaching people things ranging from, let's see, I built a dueling water fountain to teach visitors and users about the prisoner's dilemma. I built a photo booth that used computer vision to teach people about the microbiome that lives on their face, like, just all kinds of weird things like that that fuse the digital and the physical worlds. I loved my time there. And then kind of COVID hit and I realized that everything I had been working on for ten years was locked up in a museum that I no longer had access to. And it really gave me a desire to kind of bring my ideas into the physical world. I wanted to make things that people interact with and use in their lives on a day-to-day basis. And I would say that's really what brought me here to this point. LINDSEY: Very cool. Very interesting backgrounds, in my opinion. What is the new idea? What is the thing that you're bringing into the incubator? Mike, I'll start with you. Tell us a bit about what you're working on. MIKE: Chris and I are working on physical objects that connect to digital content is sort of the broadest way that I could describe it. I think, you know, as Chris kind of mentioned, you know, we've both been working on sort of physical things that have interactivity for a lot of our careers. I think we both come from an era of a lot more physical objects in your life, whether that's, you know, VHS cassettes at your parent's house growing up, or records and tape cassettes, and just sort of physical things that remind you of the things that you love. And I think that, you know, cell phones are great, and the sort of the smartphone era is amazing and having, you know, every single song, and movie, and television show and podcasts, et cetera, in a black box in my pocket is great. But I think we've sort of gotten to a point where it's more of an organizational problem now than anything else. And we sort of forget the actual things that we love in this world. And so, we're working on basically making physical objects to tie to digital content, and we're starting with music. And that's what we've been working on at thoughtbot is sort of how we can create physical things that basically you can tap, and that will take you to streaming content. One of the first things we're working on literally looks like sort of a little mixtape on a piece of wood, and you can just load that up with any sort of playlist that you might have on Spotify, or Apple Music, or YouTube, or whatever, and tap it, and it will take you there. And so, it's just sort of that idea of like, oh, we used to be able to sort of flip through a friend's music collection and judge them ruthlessly, or become even better friends with them based on kind of what you saw there. And we think that the time is ripe for, I don't know, a blend of that nostalgia with actual sort of, like, real-world utility that people could be into this right now. Chris, what am I missing there? CHRIS: I'd say just to expand on that a little bit, it's, you know, we spend so much time in the digital world, but we still exist in the physical. And a lot of the things, like, you might spend a really long time editing a photo for your parents or making a playlist for a friend, and there's, like, a value there that might not translate because it's digital. It's ephemeral. And I think tying these digital assets to a physical thing makes them special. It gives them, like, a permanent place in your life, something to respect, to hold on to, and maybe even pass down at some point. LINDSEY: Yeah, and I think before we logged on, we actually had Jordyn and Mike grabbing cassette tapes from the room there and to show us -- MIKE: [inaudible 06:49] LINDSEY: What [laughs] was some of their collection and to prove some of the power of these physical –- MIKE: Nothing, like, just old mixtapes. LINDSEY: Mementos. MIKE: Yeah. We were just talking about this on our sync with the thoughtbot crew. They're, like, there's sort of two levels of nostalgia. There's nostalgia for people like us who, yeah, [crosstalk 07:09] mixtapes, right? For people who actually grew up with this stuff and still have it lying around or don't but, like, look at something like that that gives you, like, instant flashbacks, right? You're like, oh my God, I remember scrolling on that little j-card or, like, getting a mixtape for my first, you know, boyfriend or girlfriend, and having it just mean everything. So, there's people for whom that was a thing. And there's, you know, generations of people for whom that is, like, their only connection to that is, you know, Stranger Things or, like, you know, the mixtape exists in pop culture as a reference. So, there's still, like, a very strong attachment there, but it's not a personal one, right? It's a cultural one. But I think everybody has that connection. So, that's kind of why we're starting with the mixtape, just because I think everyone can kind of relate to that in some way. LINDSEY: Yeah, no, yeah. When I hear mixtape, it goes immediately to crushes. You make a mixtape for your crush. CHRIS: Exactly. LINDSEY: It's a huge, powerful market, powerful. MIKE: Oh my God, so powerful. I mean, yeah, I don't know anybody -- LINDSEY: What's more motivating? MIKE: [laughs] Yeah, exactly. CHRIS: Or even just I have a really good friend who I don't get to see as often as I'd like. And he and I are constantly sending each other, you know, Spotify links and text messages. And it's great. I love that interaction. But at the same time, you know, I might forget to add that to a playlist, and then it's kind of lost. If I had taken the time to make something and send it to him physically or vice versa, it just becomes so much more special and so much more real. MIKE: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I first made these...I mean, we can go to this origin if we want. But, like, I literally just went on moo.com, right? The business card company. And they let you upload, you know, 50 different images, and they'll send you all of those as business cards. And so, I literally went on and just made business cards of all the album covers of, like, albums that I loved growing up, right? And their cheapest is this little piece of cardboard. But I had 50 of these, and I'd put them all out on my coffee table, just as something I wanted to have around. And people kept coming, you know, friends would come over, and you would just have these conversations that I haven't had in 10 or 15 years, right? Because no one's going to come to my house and pick up my phone and look at my Spotify collection. But if these things are all just sitting out, they're like, "Oh shit, you're into that? Like, I haven't thought about that album in 15 years." Or like, "Oh, I didn't know you were into that. I'm, like, a crazy super fan of that artist as well." And all of a sudden, we're having these conversations that we just weren't having. Yeah, there's something there where it's all been nostalgia coupled with the kind of prompting of conversation and connection that we've kind of lost, I think. CHRIS: And I think just to clarify a little bit on what Mike's saying, is, you know, this mixtape will be our first product launch, and then we're hoping to move into collectibles for artists and labels. So, shortly after we launch this tape, we're hoping to launch some kind of pilot with a label where you will be able to buy a version of this for your favorite music artist at a merch table in a concert, possibly online. Our dream is to have these sitting there on the table with T-shirts, and records, and other things that artists sell so you can express for the artists that you love. This is a way of expressing your fandom. LINDSEY: Jordyn, heading over to you, this feels like maybe the first consumer product that has gone through the incubator, would you say? Or how do you think about it? JORDYN: Yeah, if you're a consumer -- LINDSEY: Or is it different than other types of products? JORDYN: Yeah, the first incubator project we did with Senga was, I think, what you would call prosumer. So, it was sort of a consumer thing but directed at folks who had kind of freelancing in sort of a business context. It's got a lot of dynamics of the consumer. But this one, for sure, is the first pure consumer play. Though now that I'm thinking about it, you know, AvidFirst had some consumer elements to it, but it was, you know, it was, like, more complex tech [laughs] [inaudible 10:46] totally different thing -- LINDSEY: But definitely the first of the physical, physical [inaudible 10:52] JORDYN: Oh, sure, the first of the physical thing. Right. Absolutely. LINDSEY: Does that change any of, like, the approach of the programming, or it's kind of -- JORDYN: I mean, no, not fundamentally, though it does add this layer of operations that you don't have with a pure software play. So, we have to be, there is a thing that needs to get shipped to people in the world, and that takes timelines, and it takes -- LINDSEY: Supply chain. JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. And Chris is doing most of that stuff. I don't want to, you know, this is not, like, the main focus of our team necessarily, but it intersects, right? So, this isn't the first one of these types of products I've worked on personally in my career. But there's something, like, really, for me, very fulfilling about, like, there's software. There's a big component of software. There's also this physical object that needs to exist in the world. And partly, what's so compelling about Goodz is that it gives you the promise of a physical, like, the sort of good aspects of a physical product, a thing you can hold in your hand and look at and really connect with in that physical way. But it has this dynamic digital, like, essential quality as well. So, it's very compelling as a product because it sort of marries the things that we like about both the physical world and the digital world, which is partly why the team was really excited about working on it [laughs]. LINDSEY: Well, that was going to be my next question is, you know, what stood out to you about the Goodz application for the incubator and the interview process that made you and the team feel like this was going to be a great project to work on? JORDYN: Yeah. So, I think just the team really resonated with the sort of idea in general, and it seemed fun. There was, like, it's a very positive thing, right? It isn't so much about solving problems and pain points. And, sometimes the, you know, when you're very focused on solving problems, it can feel a little doomy because you actually have to, like, immerse yourself in the problems of the people that you're making software for. And sometimes, you start to feel like the world is just full of problems. What Goodz is doing is sort of it is solving a problem in a sense, but not in that kind of way. It's really, like, a fun upside kind of thing, which I think a lot of the folks on the team were very excited about. But, like, the software component, actually, is very interesting to us from a technological standpoint as well. There's a lot of opportunity here to do interesting things on the backend with an object that's essentially functioning as a bookmark out in the world. What all can you do with that? There's something super compelling and technically interesting about it. And I think, also, the team was just sort of excited by Chris and Mike, you know, the energy and the kind of background they were bringing to the table was also super interesting. And then, above all else, what I say every time you ask me this question, which is stage fit, y'all, good stage fit. They're right at the beginning. They haven't built the product yet [laughs]. Gotta say it. It's a good stage fit. They know who they're building for broadly but not super specifically. Got a good vision but, like, haven't made that first step with the software. Perfect stage fit for us [laughs]. LINDSEY: Great. So, Chris, we were talking a bit before about how you two have been collaborators in the past, worked on business ideas before. Why bring this idea into the thoughtbot incubator? What are you hoping to, you know, achieve? CHRIS: One of the main reasons why we wanted to bring this into the incubator was just for support, momentum, and then, also, I would say validation for our idea. I mean, we came to the incubator with a very, yeah, I would say it was a fairly developed idea that needed to be proved, and we, quite frankly, needed help with that. You know, Mike and I have our own expertises, but we don't know how to do everything. We're more than willing to jump in where we need to go. But having people with expertise to work with has proven to be incredibly helpful and just having kind of fresh faces to bat ideas around with after he and I have been staring at each other for months now on Zoom calls and meetings. And just, you know, being able to talk about these ideas with fresh faces and new people and get new perspectives has been so very, very helpful. I think something that's also great from the momentum standpoint is that because there's a time limit to this experience, we've got the time that we have with you guys, and we've been able to set goals that I think are very achievable for things we want to occur in the next couple of months, and it feels like we're going to get there. And I think by the end of this, I mean, our hope, and I think we're on track, is to have a functioning physical product that we're going to offer to consumers with a digital backend to support it, which is, in my mind, amazing. That'll totally validate this idea and prove if we have something or not. LINDSEY: I was going to ask if you're open to sharing what those goals specifically are. Is that it? Is it that by the end, you have -- MIKE: Is that it? Lindsey, that's a lot. [laughter] CHRIS: It's a lot. I mean, yeah. I mean, we're going to have a physical object in the world that you can buy via an e-commerce site -- JORDYN: Sounds like we need Lindsey on the team if Lindsey feels like this is so achievable. [laughter] CHRIS: Yeah, yeah. Lindsey...yeah. We're in the beginning [crosstalk 15:47] LINDSEY: I meant, is that the goal? CHRIS: That is the goal. LINDSEY: Is that all? CHRIS: I was going to –- LINDSEY: Is that all you got? CHRIS: Mike, do you agree? MIKE: Yeah. Is that the goal? Yes, that is the goal. I mean, you know, when we sat down with the thoughtbot team kind of week one, you know, they're sort of like, "All right, let's define kind of the experiment." So, we refer to them as experiments, which I think is helpful because, like, what are the experiments that we want to be doing during our time here? And, you know, we talked about it a lot. And yeah, I think it's, you know, having a physical product out in the world, having a website in which to sell it. But also, it's really, like Chris was saying, it's like, it's market validation, and just making sure we actually have something that people want. It's like, you know, running a startup takes so long and, like [laughs], you know, you'll do it for so many years. It's like bands when people say, like, "Oh, that's an overnight sensation." It's like, you know, that band has been slogging it out in tiny, little venues for four years before you ever heard of them. It's like, that's what so much of the startup world feels like to me, too. It's like, "Oh, you're just getting started as a startup?" It's like, "Well, we've been working on this forever." And I know how long this can take. And so, I think we want to learn as early as possible, like, is this something people actually want? Because if they don't, like, we'll just go do something else. I don't want to spend years making something that people don't want. So, I think the biggest goal, for me, is just validation, and then that is sort of how we get there is like, okay, how do we validate this? Cool. Let's identify some, you know, assumptions of personas that we think are people who do actually want this and then try to go sell it to them. And all the implications from that are, okay, well, you need a website where somebody can buy it. You need a physical product that somebody can actually buy. So, all those things sort of come out of that, but, for me, it's like, proving that assumption, is this thing real? Do people actually want this? And everything else is like, okay, how do we prove that? LINDSEY: Jordyn, what does that look like in these first few weeks here? User interviews, I assume, how are the user interviews going? JORDYN: Always. Always. So, you know, we kick it off by just, like, doing the exercise where we list everybody who might want this. And the team, you know, it's a fun product. Everybody brought their own assumptions and ideas to the table on that. You know, we had a lot of different scenarios we were imagining. It's super fun getting that stuff out of people's heads, just, like, what are we all thinking? And then, you know, we get to negotiate, like, okay...I always encourage everyone to think, like, if everyone else on the team was on the moon, you had to make a decision about a market segment to pick; which one would you pick? And then we kind of argue about it in a productive way. It really helps us get at, like, what are the dynamics that we think matter upfront? And then we pick one, or, in this case, we have a few. We have a handful. And we're running interview projects where we just recruit people to talk about people that meet this persona, talk about a specific problem. We're in the middle of that right now. And it's fun, fantastic. These conversations are super interesting. We're validating a lot of the things that Mike and Chris, you know, walked into this with, but we're learning a bunch of new things as well. And, like, really, part of the aim there is to validate that there's a hole in the market that we might fill but also to hear the language people are using to describe this stuff. So, when people talk about buying music, merch, you know, making playlists, et cetera, like, what language do they use to talk about that? So that we make sure we're speaking the language that our customer uses to describe this stuff. And we're, you know, we're right in the pocket of doing that, learning stuff all the time. And it helps us kind of hone the messaging. It helps us know where to go talk to people about it, how to talk about it, but it's, you know, it all kind of fits together. And it's just this, really...the early stages. It's just a bunch of us in a room, a virtual room, in this case, sort of, like, tossing ideas around. But out of it crystallizes this sense of alignment about who this is for, how to talk to them about it, and with a goal. And, you know, Mike and Chris walked in with the exact right mindset about this, which is, yes, it's experiments. We need to validate it. Let's make sure there's a there-there. If there's a there-there, let's figure out where it is [laughs], like, all those things. And we're running these experiments, and it was really [inaudible 19:36]. We got down to business quite quickly here. It was really great. LINDSEY: Like you said, it's not necessarily a problem or, you know, the typical framing of a problem. How do you start those user interview questions around this? Do you feel a gap between the physical and the digital sound? [laughter] JORDYN: No, no. LINDSEY: It's maybe not it [laughs]. JORDYN: Yeah, no. Well, I can tell you what our startup questions are. One of them is, tell me about the last time you bought music merch. Go for it, Lindsey. Tell us. LINDSEY: The last time I bought music merch I went to a Tegan and Sara concert a few weeks ago, and I bought a T-shirt. JORDYN: Tell me about buying that T-shirt. Why'd you buy it? LINDSEY: Because I wanted to remember the show and my time with my friends, and I wanted to support the artists. I know that buying merch is the best way to support your favorite touring artists. JORDYN: So, it's just, you know, we could spend the rest of this time talking [laughter] [crosstalk 20:34], and it would be awesome. So, it's really a lot of things like that. LINDSEY: Gotcha. JORDYN: You don't ask, "What problem are you trying to solve by buying this t-shirt?" Right? Like, that's not, you know, but we ask you to tell us a bunch of stories about when you did this recently. You know, and if you make playlists for friends, you know, that's a different persona. But we would have asked, you know, like, "Tell me about the last playlist you made. You know, who did you share it with? You know, what happened after that? What happened after that? What happened after that?" It's a lot of questions like that. And there's just nothing better. People love to tell you what's going on with them. And it's great [laughs]. LINDSEY: Yeah. As you all have been doing these interviews, Mike and Chris, have you been surprised by anything? Any interesting insights that you're seeing already? CHRIS: I mean, I haven't done really much in the way of user interviews in the past. This is a really new experience for me. And then we're, obviously, not on the calls because that would be weird and probably intimidating for people. But we're getting lots of highlights from folks who are doing them, you know, in our daily sync. And I'm surprised at how many, like, really intense, like, playlist nerds we have found even just in, like, the few people we've talked to, like, in the best possible way. Like, people who are like, "I make playlists all the time." Like, you're talking about, like, a vinyl fan or, like, a...Jordyn, what's the story? It's, like, the guy who there was so much out-of-print vinyl that he started a vinyl label just to get the albums in vinyl. [crosstalk 21:56] JORDYN: Yeah. There were a bunch of releases that he feels really passionately about that were never released on vinyl that he knew would never be released on vinyl. And so, he started a vinyl record label. And we just found this guy [laughter]. CHRIS: Is that indicative that that's, like, an entire persona we're going to, like, target? Absolutely not. But it's just, like, it's amazing that even just in the few user interviews we've done, that we've found so many very passionate people. And it's sent me down, like, a TikTok rabbit hole of, like, TikTok, like, music nerd influencer-type folks who are posting playlists. And they, like, hundreds of thousands of likes on these videos that are literally just, like, screen with text on it that you're supposed to, like, pause the video [laughs] and, like, look at, like, the songs that they're recommending. And it's like, who does that? And it was like, these people do that. And it's like, so there are...it's been very encouraging to me, actually. I was worried that we were going to find not as much passion as we had suspected, and I think the opposite has proven to be true. So, it's exciting. CHRIS: Yeah, I completely agree with Mike. It's been so encouraging. I think, for me, what we're doing is an idea that I'm very excited about and have been very excited about for a long time. But hearing the responses that we're getting makes me confident in the idea, too. That's great. I mean, I think that is everything that a founder needs, you know, is excitement and confidence. MIKE: Well, and just the whole user interview experience has, like, made a lot of my other conversations sort of I've tried to frame parts of them as user interviews because I'm talking to a lot of, like, label folks now, and artists, merch people. And, you know, I ended up just sort of, like, asking them, I mean, yes, trying to explain the product and work on kind of partnership stuff, but a lot of it is really just geeking out with them. And just, like, hearing their thoughts about, like, what they love about merch because these are people that clearly think about this stuff all the time. So, it's definitely kind of, like, tuned my other conversations into trying to get unbiased feedback. LINDSEY: Yeah. Everything is a little user interview now. MIKE: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Get that angle in there. All right, so some early validation and excitement. That's really cool to hear. Any challenges or, you know, other kinds of learnings early on? Anything that's been invalidated? MIKE: I don't know that we're there yet. [inaudible 24:02] Chris, I don't know. I'm happy to find that some things are invalidated, but I don't really feel...you know, some of the personas that we decided or maybe just one of the personas we decided to pursue, I think we're having a hard time having those user interviews kind of really bear fruit, but that's helpful, too, actually. I mean, it's like, okay, well, maybe that's not a group that we target. JORDYN: Yeah. It's about, like [inaudible 24:24]. I encourage folks not to think about this like a 'no, not that,' and instead think of it as like a 'not yet.' And that's, I think, the dynamic here with a couple of the personas we were interested in. It's just been turned into kind of, like, a not yet for reasons that we very quickly figured out, but we'll get there. It's just a matter of figuring out we had some other personas take precedence because they're more sort of red, hot in a way, right? It's just easier to get in contact with these people, or it's, like, clear what they're going for or what they need from the market. So, you know, we have this whole list, and it was not clear at first who was going to kind of stand out. But we've kind of found some focus there, which means, invariably, that there's things that are falling out of the frame for now, and you're kind of de-prioritizing them. But it really is, like, a we'll get to that [laughs]. We'll eventually get to that. LINDSEY: Yeah. And part of the process, who's going to rise to the top right now? JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Do you have anything you can show and tell with us today or not yet? MIKE: So, Chris has been hard at work on all the physical side of this stuff and going back and forth with our manufacturing partner and all that good stuff. But we have a final version of the mixtape product. LINDSEY: For when this gets pulled into the podcast, Mike's showing us a physical card. CHRIS: It's a small card, and we call them Goodz. And it's printed on three-millimeter plywood using a UV printing process, super durable. And this is something you can put in your pocket. You're not going to wreck it. I think you could actually (Don't quote me on this.), but I think you can even, like, put it through a washing machine, and it would be fine. Embedded in this card is a chip that can be read by your phone, and that's pretty much what we're working with. MIKE: Yeah, so the idea is you just sort of tap this, and it'll take you to a streaming version of a playlist. And then Chris has also been making these adorable crates. And [crosstalk 26:10] LINDSEY: The little crates I love. MIKE: And we actually have some wooden ones, too, in the testing that's [crosstalk 26:15] LINDSEY: And then the mixtapes get stored in the little crates [crosstalk 26:19] MIKE: Yeah. So, you could have -- LINDSEY: Throw it on your desk. CHRIS: Each crate can hold about, I think, 15 of these things. What's really cool about this product on the physical side is we are using a tried-and-true technology, which is NFC chips. These are things that make Apple Pay work, make Google Pay work. They are in your E-ZPass when you drive through a toll booth. This is stuff that's been around for years. So, we're just kind of leveraging this technology that's been around for so long in a new way. MIKE: Yeah, I think it's similar to kind of the evolution of QR codes, right? It's like they were sort of around forever, and then it was, like, COVID and restaurant menus kind of kicked those into mainstream. Like, NFC has been around for a long time. It's very tried and true. It's affordable. But I want to say Apple only turned it on by default, like, the NFC reader in the iPhone in the last, like, 18 to 24 months, right? Like, it started...like, it's been around for a while, but they're sort of slowly kind of...and now you just sort of see it everywhere. People are using it on the subways in New York to scan for tickets or for accessing stuff. I was also just showing Chris has been prototyping with the ability to sort of keep these on a key ring. So, we have, like, a little chain hole on them. It is [inaudible 27:22] to sort of have this on your backpack or, you know, on a key ring, or something like that. And friends could kind of, like, come up to you and just, like, scan one that looks interesting. CHRIS: And yeah, something that's awesome about this is you don't need an app. You don't need to download anything. As long as your NFC reader is on when you scan this, it will bring you to the music that it's linked to, which I think is awesome. So, I mean, my dream is to have these, like, hanging off of people's backpacks so I can, like, scan them in the subway or, you know, it's such, like, an easy thing to do. And it requires so little technical time on the user's end to be able to do it. LINDSEY: Oh, we got a question here. "So, Moo used to offer NFC cards. What made you decide to do the thicker plywood model?" CHRIS: Durability is really what it comes down to. We wanted something that felt like an object that you can have and treasure. Like, these have weight, you know, these feel like something, not just a piece of paper. This is something that you can have and [inaudible 28:22] your desk, and it's not going to fade in the sunlight. It's not going to disintegrate over time. This is something that's going to last. MIKE: Yeah, the cards would definitely, like, as I would sort of carry them around and show them to people and stuff, the cards would start, you know, breaking. It's like having a business card in your pocket, right? Eventually, it's going to kind of wear out. And plus, we had, like, the stickers were visible on the back of them. And we were, like, having the sticker just completely disappear inside the wood it just feels a little bit more like magic. LINDSEY: Well, thanks for demoing there. I put you on the spot a little bit. But they are...I had seen them in the Slack, and they're very cool [laughs]. So, I had to ask if we could show them off a bit. MIKE: Of course. CHRIS: I think another thing to think about, too, is we've been talking a lot about the user experience. But if and when we get to the point of making these for artists, artists will be able to collect so much data off of the way that people buy and collect and use these things over time, which is something that we're really, really excited about. And also, you know, we're working on a way to make the link in the object updatable over time. So, artists will be able to change what a card points do to inform their users about the latest and greatest thing. LINDSEY: Very cool. Jordyn, what's next on the programming agenda for Chris and Mike? JORDYN: It's really sort of we're in this, like, iterative cycle. So, we're talking to folks. We're working on the website. The conversations we're having with people are informing how we're framing this first experiment with the mixtape, how we're marketing it, who we're marketing it to. I think next up is probably a Google Ad experiment to really see if we can piggyback on some stuff or at least figure out a new consumer product. It's so tough, right? It's also not a thing people are searching for. So, we have to come up with some experiments for how we get people to that website [laughs]. So, you know, Google Ads funnels is just something you kind of have to do because it's very interesting to figure out what people are responding to, what people are searching for. But we're going to have a bunch of other experiments as well and non-experiments. Outbound experiments: can we go to people? Can we get listed in a gift-buying guide for the holidays? Or, like, we don't know. There's a bunch of experiments we need to do around that, which is really just this iteration. We won't stop talking to users but, you know, everything we're hearing from them will inform where we go and how we talk to the folks in those places where we end up. And really, it's just about starting...once this is up and, you know, there's, like, an orderable thing, there's, like, a whole data cycle where we start to learn from the stuff we're testing; we actually have some real data for it, and we can start to tweak, iterate and change our strategy. But the bigger thing, also, is this bigger platform. So, the next thing really, the big next thing, is to sort of start to scope and create an architecture idea. What's it going to take to build the actual backend thing? And it's the thing that thoughtbot really [laughs] excels at, which is software. So, you know, that's the big next kind of project. Once the mixtape experiment is sort of out and in flight and we're getting data, we really need to turn our attention to the technical backend. LINDSEY: Exciting. Another comment/question from Jeff, who maybe needs a user interview. "Love the crate more than the actual albums. Maybe offer collections of artists." MIKE: Yeah, that's the plan. CHRIS: Yeah, definitely. It's a good idea. Yeah, it's, I mean, and labels get to, especially, like, small indie labels get really excited about doing, like, crates worth of collections of different artists or, like, you know, digging through their back catalog, their subscription services. There's a lot of different angles for sure about that idea. LINDSEY: [inaudible 31:55] Chris and Mike, going into this next section of the programming, for anyone watching right now, or watching the recording, or listening to the recording, any action items from them? You know, are you looking for any user interviews or have any survey or any destinations you'd like to send people yet? CHRIS: Not quite yet, but soon, I would say. Well -- MIKE: I mean, [inaudible 32:19] plug the website, I mean, you know, I think we've got, like, an email to sign up from there, right? The URL is getthegoodz.com and I [crosstalk 32:27] LINDSEY: Goodz with a Z. MIKE: Goodz with a Z. CHRIS: With Z. MIKE: So yeah, if you want to go there, you can sign up. I think there's an email signup on there to learn more. LINDSEY: Perfect. All right. getthegoodz.com email sign up. To stay up to date on Goodz and the incubator, you can follow along on the thoughtbot blog. You know, as always, send us any questions you might have, and we're happy to get to those. But otherwise, thanks for listening. And thank you all — Jordyn, Chris, and Mike. Thanks so much for joining today and sharing and being open about your stories so far. MIKE: Thank you. CHRIS: Yeah, thank you, Lindsey. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions.

This episode introduces the second participants of the season's thoughtbot's Incubator Program, Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito. Mike has a background in music industry marketing, and Chris is a maker and tinkerer with experience in exhibit development. They're developing a product combining physical objects with digital content, starting with music. Their concept involves creating physical items like wooden mixtapes with NFC chips linking to digital playlists. This blend of physical and digital aims to revive the tangible aspects of fan engagement in a digital era. Their project, named Goodz, is the first pure consumer product in the Incubator program, adding complexities like supply chain and manufacturing considerations. The team is conducting user interviews to validate market interest and refine their messaging. They aim to have a functioning physical product and a supporting digital backend by the end of the program. Challenges include defining the target market and understanding how to attract customers to a new product type. The thoughtbot team is excited about the project due to its fun nature and technical aspects, offering a fresh perspective compared to problem-focused startups. The conversation also explores the broader implications of bridging the digital and physical worlds in fan engagement, with the potential to collect valuable data for artists and create lasting, meaningful connections for fans. Follow Josh Herzig-Marx on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaherzigmarx/) or X (https://twitter.com/herzigma). Visit his website at joshua.herzig-marx.com (https://joshua.herzig-marx.com/). Follow thoughtbot on X (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: LINDSEY: All right. I'm going to kick us off here. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in. We're doing our first update with two founders that are now going through the Startup incubator at thoughtbot. thoughtbot, if you're not familiar, product design and development consultancy. We'll help you on your product and make your team a success. One of the very fun ways we do that is through the startup thoughtbot incubator, which is an eight-week program. So, with us today, I myself am Lindsey Christensen, marketing for thoughtbot. We also have Jordyn Bonds, who is our Director of Product Strategy and runs the thoughtbot incubator. And then, as I mentioned, we've got two new founders who are going to tell us a little bit about themselves and what they're working on. Mike Rosenthal, let's kick off with you. Can you tell us a little bit about maybe your background and what brings you to present day? MIKE: Sure. First of, thanks for having us. It's been a lot of fun doing this over the last [inaudible 01:03]; it's only two weeks, two and a half weeks, something like that. It feels like a lot more. I come from a music industry background, so worked in sort of marketing and strategy for artists for a long time; worked with a band called OK Go back, sort of starting in 2009 or so. I did a lot of early kind of viral music video stuff. And we were sort of early to the idea of sort of leveraging fan engagement and revenue, honestly, kind of beyond sort of just selling their music and touring, so sort of exploring other ways that artists can make money and connect with their fans and was with those guys for five years. And then, I went on and worked at an artist management company in Brooklyn called Mick Management and ran the marketing department there, so doing similar type of work but for a roster of 2025 major label bands. And so, really got to see fan engagement on all different levels, from really large bands down to baby bands who were just getting started. And then, yeah, started my first startup in 2018, so doing sort of fan engagement work, and NFTs, and blockchain-type stuff working with bands, but then also sports and entertainment properties. Yeah, that kind of brings me here. So, always been sort of on the music side of things, which ties into a lot of what Chris and I are working on now, but more generally, sort of fan engagement and how to, you know, drive revenue and engagement for artists and deliver value for fans. LINDSEY: Very interesting. All right, Chris, going to head over to you. Chris Cerrito, can you tell us a bit about your background? And it sounds like yours and Mike's paths; this isn't the first time you've crossed. CHRIS: No. Mike and I have been working together since 2007, I believe. Yeah, that's a great place to start. I've always been kind of a maker and a tinkerer, always been interested in art materials, how things are put together. And that kind of culminated at grad school, where Mike and I met at NYU, where we both studied physical computing and human-computer interaction, making weird things that kind of changed the way that people interact and play with technology in their day-to-day lives. I think the first project he and I worked on together was a solar robotic band that we played with light in front of a bunch of people. It was very wonderful and confusing at the same time. After grad school, I was lucky enough to become a resident artist and then an exhibit developer at a museum in San Francisco called the Exploratorium, which is a museum of science, art, and human perception. I spent ten years there working on exhibits, teaching people things ranging from, let's see; I built a dueling water fountain to teach visitors and users about the prisoner's dilemma. I built a photo booth that used computer vision to teach people about the microbiome that lives on their face, like, just all kinds of weird things like that that fuse the digital and the physical worlds. I loved my time there. And then kind of COVID hit, and I realized that everything I had been working on for ten years was locked up in a museum that I no longer had access to. And it really gave me a desire to kind of bring my ideas into the physical world. I wanted to make things that people interact with and use in their lives on a day-to-day basis. And I would say that's really what brought me here to this point. LINDSEY: Very cool. Very interesting backgrounds, in my opinion. What is the new idea? What is the thing that you're bringing into the incubator? Mike, I'll start with you. Tell us a bit about what you're working on. MIKE: Chris and I are working on physical objects that connect to digital content is sort of the broadest way that I could describe it. I think, you know, as Chris kind of mentioned, you know, we've both been working on sort of physical things that have interactivity for a lot of our careers. I think we both come from an era of a lot more physical objects in your life, whether that's, you know, VHS cassettes at your parent's house growing up, or records and tape cassettes, and just sort of physical things that remind you of the things that you love. And I think that, you know, cell phones are great, and the sort of the smartphone era is amazing and having, you know, every single song, and movie, and television show and podcasts, et cetera, in a black box in my pocket is great. But I think we've sort of gotten to a point where it's more of an organizational problem now than anything else. And we sort of forget the actual things that we love in this world. And so, we're working on basically making physical objects to tie to digital content, and we're starting with music. And that's what we've been working on at thoughtbot is sort of how we can create physical things that basically you can tap, and that will take you to streaming content. One of the first things we're working on literally looks like sort of a little mixtape on a piece of wood, and you can just load that up with any sort of playlist that you might have on Spotify, or Apple Music, or YouTube, or whatever, and tap it, and it will take you there. And so, it's just sort of that idea of like, oh, we used to be able to sort of flip through a friend's music collection and judge them ruthlessly, or become even better friends with them based on kind of what you saw there. And we think that the time is ripe for, I don't know, a blend of that nostalgia with actual sort of, like, real-world utility that people could be into this right now. Chris, what am I missing there? CHRIS: I'd say just to expand on that a little bit, it's, you know, we spend so much time in the digital world, but we still exist in the physical. And a lot of the things, like, you might spend a really long time editing a photo for your parents or making a playlist for a friend, and there's, like, a value there that might not translate because it's digital. It's ephemeral. And I think tying these digital assets to a physical thing makes them special. It gives them, like, a permanent place in your life, something to respect, to hold on to, and maybe even pass down at some point. LINDSEY: Yeah, and I think before we logged on, we actually had Jordyn and Mike grabbing cassette tapes from the room there and to show us -- MIKE: [inaudible 06:49] LINDSEY: What [laughs] was some of their collection and to prove some of the power of these physical –- MIKE: Nothing, like, just old mixtapes. LINDSEY: Mementos. MIKE: Yeah. We were just talking about this on our sync with the thoughtbot crew. They're, like, there's sort of two levels of nostalgia. There's nostalgia for people like us who, yeah, [crosstalk 07:09] mixtapes, right? For people who actually grew up with this stuff and still have it lying around or don't but, like, look at something like that that gives you, like, instant flashbacks, right? You're like, oh my God, I remember scrolling on that little j-card or, like, getting a mixtape for my first, you know, boyfriend or girlfriend, and having it just mean everything. So, there's people for whom that was a thing. And there's, you know, generations of people for whom that is, like, their only connection to that is, you know, Stranger Things or, like, you know, the mixtape exists in pop culture as a reference. So, there's still, like, a very strong attachment there, but it's not a personal one, right? It's a cultural one. But I think everybody has that connection. So, that's kind of why we're starting with the mixtape, just because I think everyone can kind of relate to that in some way. LINDSEY: Yeah, no, yeah. When I hear mixtape, it goes immediately to crushes. You make a mixtape for your crush. CHRIS: Exactly. LINDSEY: It's a huge, powerful market, powerful. MIKE: Oh my God, so powerful. I mean, yeah, I don't know anybody -- LINDSEY: What's more motivating? MIKE: [laughs] Yeah, exactly. CHRIS: Or even just I have a really good friend who I don't get to see as often as I'd like. And he and I are constantly sending each other, you know, Spotify links and text messages. And it's great. I love that interaction. But at the same time, you know, I might forget to add that to a playlist, and then it's kind of lost. If I had taken the time to make something and send it to him physically or vice versa, it just becomes so much more special and so much more real. MIKE: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I first made these...I mean, we can go to this origin if we want. But, like, I literally just went on moo.com, right? The business card company. And they let you upload, you know, 50 different images, and they'll send you all of those as business cards. And so, I literally went on and just made business cards of all the album covers of, like, albums that I loved growing up, right? And their cheapest is this little piece of cardboard. But I had 50 of these, and I'd put them all out on my coffee table, just as something I wanted to have around. And people kept coming, you know, friends would come over, and you would just have these conversations that I haven't had in 10 or 15 years, right? Because no one's going to come to my house and pick up my phone and look at my Spotify collection. But if these things are all just sitting out, they're like, "Oh shit, you're into that? Like, I haven't thought about that album in 15 years." Or like, "Oh, I didn't know you were into that. I'm, like, a crazy super fan of that artist as well." And all of a sudden, we're having these conversations that we just weren't having. Yeah, there's something there where it's all been nostalgia coupled with the kind of prompting of conversation and connection that we've kind of lost, I think. CHRIS: And I think just to clarify a little bit on what Mike's saying, is, you know, this mixtape will be our first product launch, and then we're hoping to move into collectibles for artists and labels. So, shortly after we launch this tape, we're hoping to launch some kind of pilot with a label where you will be able to buy a version of this for your favorite music artist at a merch table in a concert, possibly online. Our dream is to have these sitting there on the table with T-shirts, and records, and other things that artists sell so you can express for the artists that you love. This is a way of expressing your fandom. LINDSEY: Jordyn, heading over to you, this feels like maybe the first consumer product that has gone through the incubator, would you say? Or how do you think about it? JORDYN: Yeah, if you're a consumer -- LINDSEY: Or is it different than other types of products? JORDYN: Yeah, the first incubator project we did with Senga was, I think, what you would call prosumer. So, it was sort of a consumer thing but directed at folks who had kind of freelancing in sort of a business context. It's got a lot of dynamics of the consumer. But this one, for sure, is the first pure consumer play. Though now that I'm thinking about it, you know, AvidFirst had some consumer elements to it, but it was, you know, it was, like, more complex tech [laughs] [inaudible 10:46] totally different thing -- LINDSEY: But definitely the first of the physical, physical [inaudible 10:52] JORDYN: Oh, sure, the first of the physical thing. Right. Absolutely. LINDSEY: Does that change any of, like, the approach of the programming, or it's kind of -- JORDYN: I mean, no, not fundamentally, though it does add this layer of operations that you don't have with a pure software play. So, we have to be, there is a thing that needs to get shipped to people in the world, and that takes timelines, and it takes -- LINDSEY: Supply chain. JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. And Chris is doing most of that stuff. I don't want to, you know, this is not, like, the main focus of our team necessarily, but it intersects, right? So, this isn't the first one of these types of products I've worked on personally in my career. But there's something, like, really, for me, very fulfilling about, like, there's software. There's a big component of software. There's also this physical object that needs to exist in the world. And partly, what's so compelling about Goodz is that it gives you the promise of a physical, like, the sort of good aspects of a physical product, a thing you can hold in your hand and look at and really connect with in that physical way. But it has this dynamic digital, like, essential quality as well. So, it's very compelling as a product because it sort of marries the things that we like about both the physical world and the digital world, which is partly why the team was really excited about working on it [laughs]. LINDSEY: Well, that was going to be my next question is, you know, what stood out to you about the Goodz application for the incubator and the interview process that made you and the team feel like this was going to be a great project to work on? JORDYN: Yeah. So, I think just the team really resonated with the sort of idea in general, and it seemed fun. There was, like, it's a very positive thing, right? It isn't so much about solving problems and pain points. And, sometimes the, you know, when you're very focused on solving problems, it can feel a little doomy because you actually have to, like, immerse yourself in the problems of the people that you're making software for. And sometimes, you start to feel like the world is just full of problems. What Goodz is doing is sort of it is solving a problem in a sense, but not in that kind of way. It's really, like, a fun upside kind of thing, which I think a lot of the folks on the team were very excited about. But, like, the software component, actually, is very interesting to us from a technological standpoint as well. There's a lot of opportunity here to do interesting things on the backend with an object that's essentially functioning as a bookmark out in the world. What all can you do with that? There's something super compelling and technically interesting about it. And I think, also, the team was just sort of excited by Chris and Mike, you know, the energy and the kind of background they were bringing to the table was also super interesting. And then, above all else, what I say every time you ask me this question, which is stage fit, y'all, good stage fit. They're right at the beginning. They haven't built the product yet [laughs]. Gotta say it. It's a good stage fit. They know who they're building for broadly but not super specifically. Got a good vision but, like, haven't made that first step with the software. Perfect stage fit for us [laughs]. LINDSEY: Great. So, Chris, we were talking a bit before about how you two have been collaborators in the past, worked on business ideas before. Why bring this idea into the thoughtbot incubator? What are you hoping to, you know, achieve? CHRIS: One of the main reasons why we wanted to bring this into the incubator was just for support, momentum, and then, also, I would say, validation for our idea. I mean, we came to the incubator with a very, yeah, I would say it was a fairly developed idea that needed to be proved, and we, quite frankly, needed help with that. You know, Mike and I have our own expertises, but we don't know how to do everything. We're more than willing to jump in where we need to go. But having people with expertise to work with has proven to be incredibly helpful, and just having kind of fresh faces to bat ideas around with after he and I have been staring at each other for months now on Zoom calls and meetings. And just, you know, being able to talk about these ideas with fresh faces and new people and get new perspectives has been so very, very helpful. I think something that's also great from the momentum standpoint is that because there's a time limit to this experience, we've got the time that we have with you guys, and we've been able to set goals that I think are very achievable for things we want to occur in the next couple of months, and it feels like we're going to get there. And I think by the end of this, I mean, our hope, and I think we're on track, is to have a functioning physical product that we're going to offer to consumers with a digital backend to support it, which is, in my mind, amazing. That'll totally validate this idea and prove if we have something or not. LINDSEY: I was going to ask if you're open to sharing what those goals specifically are. Is that it? Is it that by the end, you have -- MIKE: Is that it? Lindsey, that's a lot. [laughter] CHRIS: It's a lot. I mean, yeah. I mean, we're going to have a physical object in the world that you can buy via an e-commerce site -- JORDYN: Sounds like we need Lindsey on the team if Lindsey feels like this is so achievable. [laughter] CHRIS: Yeah, yeah. Lindsey...yeah. We're in the beginning [crosstalk 15:47] LINDSEY: I meant, is that the goal? CHRIS: That is the goal. LINDSEY: Is that all? CHRIS: I was going to –- LINDSEY: Is that all you got? CHRIS: Mike, do you agree? MIKE: Yeah. Is that the goal? Yes, that is the goal. I mean, you know, when we sat down with the thoughtbot team kind of week one, you know, they're sort of like, "All right, let's define kind of the experiment." So, we refer to them as experiments, which I think is helpful because, like, what are the experiments that we want to be doing during our time here? And, you know, we talked about it a lot. And yeah, I think it's, you know, having a physical product out in the world, having a website in which to sell it. But also, it's really like Chris was saying, it's like, it's market validation, and just making sure we actually have something that people want. It's like, you know, running a startup takes so long and, like [laughs], you know, you'll do it for so many years. It's like bands when people say, like, "Oh, that's an overnight sensation." It's like, you know, that band has been slogging it out in tiny, little venues for four years before you ever heard of them. It's like, that's what so much of the startup world feels like to me, too. It's like, "Oh, you're just getting started as a startup?" It's like, "Well, we've been working on this forever." And I know how long this can take. And so, I think we want to learn as early as possible, like, is this something people actually want? Because if they don't, like, we'll just go do something else. I don't want to spend years making something that people don't want. So, I think the biggest goal, for me, is just validation, and then that is sort of how we get there is like, okay, how do we validate this? Cool. Let's identify some, you know, assumptions of personas that we think are people who do actually want this and then try to go sell it to them. And all the implications from that are, okay, well, you need a website where somebody can buy it. You need a physical product that somebody can actually buy. So, all those things sort of come out of that, but, for me, it's like, proving that assumption, is this thing real? Do people actually want this? And everything else is like, okay, how do we prove that? LINDSEY: Jordyn, what does that look like in these first few weeks here? User interviews, I assume, how are the user interviews going? JORDYN: Always. Always. So, you know, we kick it off by just, like, doing the exercise where we list everybody who might want this. And the team, you know, it's a fun product. Everybody brought their own assumptions and ideas to the table on that. You know, we had a lot of different scenarios we were imagining. It's super fun getting that stuff out of people's heads, just, like, what are we all thinking? And then, you know, we get to negotiate, like, okay...I always encourage everyone to think, like, if everyone else on the team was on the moon, you had to make a decision about a market segment to pick; which one would you pick? And then we kind of argue about it in a productive way. It really helps us get at, like, what are the dynamics that we think matter upfront? And then we pick one, or, in this case, we have a few. We have a handful. And we're running interview projects where we just recruit people to talk about people that meet this persona, talk about a specific problem. We're in the middle of that right now. And it's fun, fantastic. These conversations are super interesting. We're validating a lot of the things that Mike and Chris, you know, walked into this with, but we're learning a bunch of new things as well. And, like, really, part of the aim there is to validate that there's a hole in the market that we might fill but also to hear the language people are using to describe this stuff. So, when people talk about buying music, merch, you know, making playlists, et cetera, like, what language do they use to talk about that? So that we make sure we're speaking the language that our customer uses to describe this stuff. And we're, you know, we're right in the pocket of doing that, learning stuff all the time. And it helps us kind of hone the messaging. It helps us know where to go talk to people about it, how to talk about it, but it's, you know, it all kind of fits together. And it's just this, really...the early stages. It's just a bunch of us in a room, a virtual room, in this case, sort of, like, tossing ideas around. But out of it crystallizes this sense of alignment about who this is for, how to talk to them about it, and with a goal. And, you know, Mike and Chris walked in with the exact right mindset about this, which is, yes, it's experiments. We need to validate it. Let's make sure there's a there-there. If there's a there-there, let's figure out where it is [laughs], like, all those things. And we're running these experiments, and it was really [inaudible 19:36]. We got down to business quite quickly here. It was really great. LINDSEY: Like you said, it's not necessarily a problem or, you know, the typical framing of a problem. How do you start those user interview questions around this? Do you feel a gap between the physical and the digital sound? [laughter] JORDYN: No, no. LINDSEY: It's maybe not it [laughs]. JORDYN: Yeah, no. Well, I can tell you what our startup questions are. One of them is, tell me about the last time you bought music merch. Go for it, Lindsey. Tell us. LINDSEY: The last time I bought music merch, I went to a Tegan and Sara concert a few weeks ago, and I bought a T-shirt. JORDYN: Tell me about buying that T-shirt. Why'd you buy it? LINDSEY: Because I wanted to remember the show and my time with my friends, and I wanted to support the artists. I know that buying merch is the best way to support your favorite touring artists. JORDYN: So, it's just, you know, we could spend the rest of this time talking [laughter] [crosstalk 20:34], and it would be awesome. So, it's really a lot of things like that. LINDSEY: Gotcha. JORDYN: You don't ask, "What problem are you trying to solve by buying this t-shirt?" Right? Like, that's not, you know, but we ask you to tell us a bunch of stories about when you did this recently. You know, and if you make playlists for friends, you know, that's a different persona. But we would have asked, you know, like, "Tell me about the last playlist you made. You know, who did you share it with? You know, what happened after that? What happened after that? What happened after that?" It's a lot of questions like that. And there's just nothing better. People love to tell you what's going on with them. And it's great [laughs]. LINDSEY: Yeah. As you all have been doing these interviews, Mike and Chris, have you been surprised by anything? Any interesting insights that you're seeing already? CHRIS: I mean, I haven't done really much in the way of user interviews in the past. This is a really new experience for me. And then we're, obviously, not on the calls because that would be weird and probably intimidating for people. But we're getting lots of highlights from folks who are doing them, you know, in our daily sync. And I'm surprised at how many, like, really intense, like, playlist nerds we have found even just in, like, the few people we've talked to, like, in the best possible way. Like, people who are like, "I make playlists all the time." Like, you're talking about, like, a vinyl fan or, like, a...Jordyn, what's the story? It's, like, the guy who there was so much out-of-print vinyl that he started a vinyl label just to get the albums in vinyl. [crosstalk 21:56] JORDYN: Yeah. There were a bunch of releases that he feels really passionately about that were never released on vinyl that he knew would never be released on vinyl. And so, he started a vinyl record label. And we just found this guy [laughter]. CHRIS: Is that indicative that that's, like, an entire persona we're going to, like, target? Absolutely not. But it's just, like, it's amazing that even just in the few user interviews we've done, that we've found so many very passionate people. And it's sent me down, like, a TikTok rabbit hole of, like, TikTok, like, music nerd influencer-type folks who are posting playlists. And they, like, hundreds of thousands of likes on these videos that are literally just, like, screen with text on it that you're supposed to, like, pause the video [laughs] and, like, look at, like, the songs that they're recommending. And it's like, who does that? And it was like, these people do that. And it's like, so there are...it's been very encouraging to me, actually. I was worried that we were going to find not as much passion as we had suspected, and I think the opposite has proven to be true. So, it's exciting. CHRIS: Yeah, I completely agree with Mike. It's been so encouraging. I think, for me, what we're doing is an idea that I'm very excited about and have been very excited about for a long time. But hearing the responses that we're getting makes me confident in the idea, too. That's great. I mean, I think that is everything that a founder needs, you know, is excitement and confidence. MIKE: Well, and just the whole user interview experience has, like, made a lot of my other conversations sort of I've tried to frame parts of them as user interviews because I'm talking to a lot of, like, label folks now, and artists, merch people. And, you know, I ended up just sort of, like, asking them, I mean, yes, trying to explain the product and work on kind of partnership stuff, but a lot of it is really just geeking out with them. And just, like, hearing their thoughts about, like, what they love about merch because these are people that clearly think about this stuff all the time. So, it's definitely kind of, like, tuned my other conversations into trying to get unbiased feedback. LINDSEY: Yeah. Everything is a little user interview now. MIKE: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Get that angle in there. All right, so some early validation and excitement. That's really cool to hear. Any challenges or, you know, other kinds of learnings early on? Anything that's been invalidated? MIKE: I don't know that we're there yet. [inaudible 24:02] Chris, I don't know. I'm happy to find that some things are invalidated, but I don't really feel...you know, some of the personas that we decided or maybe just one of the personas we decided to pursue, I think we're having a hard time having those user interviews kind of really bear fruit, but that's helpful, too, actually. I mean, it's like, okay, well, maybe that's not a group that we target. JORDYN: Yeah. It's about, like, [inaudible 24:24]. I encourage folks not to think about this like a 'no, not that,' and instead think of it as like a 'not yet.' And that's, I think, the dynamic here with a couple of the personas we were interested in. It's just been turned into kind of, like, a not yet for reasons that we very quickly figured out, but we'll get there. It's just a matter of figuring out we had some other personas take precedence because they're more sort of red, hot in a way, right? It's just easier to get in contact with these people, or it's, like, clear what they're going for or what they need from the market. So, you know, we have this whole list, and it was not clear at first who was going to kind of stand out. But we've kind of found some focus there, which means, invariably, that there's things that are falling out of the frame for now, and you're kind of de-prioritizing them. But it really is, like, a we'll get to that [laughs]. We'll eventually get to that. LINDSEY: Yeah. And part of the process, who's going to rise to the top right now? JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Do you have anything you can show and tell with us today or not yet? MIKE: So, Chris has been hard at work on all the physical side of this stuff and going back and forth with our manufacturing partner and all that good stuff. But we have a final version of the mixtape product. LINDSEY: For when this gets pulled into the podcast, Mike's showing us a physical card. CHRIS: It's a small card, and we call them Goodz. And it's printed on three-millimeter plywood using a UV printing process, super durable. And this is something you can put in your pocket. You're not going to wreck it. I think you could actually (Don't quote me on this.), but I think you can even, like, put it through a washing machine, and it would be fine. Embedded in this card is a chip that can be read by your phone, and that's pretty much what we're working with. MIKE: Yeah, so the idea is you just sort of tap this, and it'll take you to a streaming version of a playlist. And then Chris has also been making these adorable crates. And [crosstalk 26:10] LINDSEY: The little crates I love. MIKE: And we actually have some wooden ones, too, in the testing that's [crosstalk 26:15] LINDSEY: And then the mixtapes get stored in the little crates [crosstalk 26:19] MIKE: Yeah. So, you could have -- LINDSEY: Throw it on your desk. CHRIS: Each crate can hold about, I think, 15 of these things. What's really cool about this product on the physical side is we are using a tried-and-true technology, which is NFC chips. These are things that make Apple Pay work, make Google Pay work. They are in your E-ZPass when you drive through a toll booth. This is stuff that's been around for years. So, we're just kind of leveraging this technology that's been around for so long in a new way. MIKE: Yeah, I think it's similar to kind of the evolution of QR codes, right? It's like they were sort of around forever, and then it was, like, COVID and restaurant menus kind of kicked those into mainstream. Like, NFC has been around for a long time. It's very tried and true. It's affordable. But I want to say Apple only turned it on by default, like, the NFC reader in the iPhone in the last, like, 18 to 24 months, right? Like, it started...like, it's been around for a while, but they're sort of slowly kind of...and now you just sort of see it everywhere. People are using it on the subways in New York to scan for tickets or for accessing stuff. I was also just showing Chris has been prototyping with the ability to sort of keep these on a key ring. So, we have, like, a little chain hole on them. It is [inaudible 27:22] to sort of have this on your backpack or, you know, on a key ring, or something like that. And friends could kind of, like, come up to you and just, like, scan one that looks interesting. CHRIS: And yeah, something that's awesome about this is you don't need an app. You don't need to download anything. As long as your NFC reader is on when you scan this, it will bring you to the music that it's linked to, which I think is awesome. So, I mean, my dream is to have these, like, hanging off of people's backpacks so I can, like, scan them in the subway or, you know, it's such, like, an easy thing to do. And it requires so little technical time on the user's end to be able to do it. LINDSEY: Oh, we got a question here. "So, Moo used to offer NFC cards. What made you decide to do the thicker plywood model?" CHRIS: Durability is really what it comes down to. We wanted something that felt like an object that you can have and treasure. Like, these have weight, you know, these feel like something, not just a piece of paper. This is something that you can have and [inaudible 28:22] your desk, and it's not going to fade in the sunlight. It's not going to disintegrate over time. This is something that's going to last. MIKE: Yeah, the cards would definitely, like, as I would sort of carry them around and show them to people and stuff, the cards would start, you know, breaking. It's like having a business card in your pocket, right? Eventually, it's going to kind of wear out. And plus, we had, like, the stickers were visible on the back of them. And we were, like, having the sticker just completely disappear inside the wood; it just feels a little bit more like magic. LINDSEY: Well, thanks for demoing there. I put you on the spot a little bit. But they are...I had seen them in the Slack, and they're very cool [laughs]. So, I had to ask if we could show them off a bit. MIKE: Of course. CHRIS: I think another thing to think about, too, is we've been talking a lot about the user experience. But if and when we get to the point of making these for artists, artists will be able to collect so much data off of the way that people buy and collect and use these things over time, which is something that we're really, really excited about. And also, you know, we're working on a way to make the link in the object updatable over time. So, artists will be able to change what a card points do to inform their users about the latest and greatest thing. LINDSEY: Very cool. Jordyn, what's next on the programming agenda for Chris and Mike? JORDYN: It's really sort of we're in this, like, iterative cycle. So, we're talking to folks. We're working on the website. The conversations we're having with people are informing how we're framing this first experiment with the mixtape, how we're marketing it, who we're marketing it to. I think next up is probably a Google Ad experiment to really see if we can piggyback on some stuff or at least figure out a new consumer product. It's so tough, right? It's also not a thing people are searching for. So, we have to come up with some experiments for how we get people to that website [laughs]. So, you know, Google Ads funnels is just something you kind of have to do because it's very interesting to figure out what people are responding to, what people are searching for. But we're going to have a bunch of other experiments as well and non-experiments. Outbound experiments: can we go to people? Can we get listed in a gift-buying guide for the holidays? Or, like, we don't know. There's a bunch of experiments we need to do around that, which is really just this iteration. We won't stop talking to users, but, you know, everything we're hearing from them will inform where we go and how we talk to the folks in those places where we end up. And really, it's just about starting...once this is up and, you know, there's, like, an orderable thing, there's, like, a whole data cycle where we start to learn from the stuff we're testing; we actually have some real data for it, and we can start to tweak, iterate and change our strategy. But the bigger thing, also, is this bigger platform. So, the next thing really, the big next thing, is to sort of start to scope and create an architecture idea. What's it going to take to build the actual backend thing? And it's the thing that thoughtbot really [laughs] excels at, which is software. So, you know, that's the big next kind of project. Once the mixtape experiment is sort of out and in flight and we're getting data, we really need to turn our attention to the technical backend. LINDSEY: Exciting. Another comment/question from Jeff, who maybe needs a user interview. "Love the crate more than the actual albums. Maybe offer collections of artists." MIKE: Yeah, that's the plan. CHRIS: Yeah, definitely. It's a good idea. Yeah, it's, I mean, and labels get to, especially, like, small indie labels get really excited about doing, like, crates worth of collections of different artists or, like, you know, digging through their back catalog, their subscription services. There's a lot of different angles for sure about that idea. LINDSEY: [inaudible 31:55] Chris and Mike, going into this next section of the programming, for anyone watching right now, or watching the recording, or listening to the recording, any action items from them? You know, are you looking for any user interviews or have any survey or any destinations you'd like to send people yet? CHRIS: Not quite yet, but soon, I would say. Well -- MIKE: I mean, [inaudible 32:19] plug the website, I mean, you know, I think we've got, like, an email to sign up from there, right? The URL is getthegoodz.com and I [crosstalk 32:27] LINDSEY: Goodz with a Z. MIKE: Goodz with a Z. CHRIS: With Z. MIKE: So yeah, if you want to go there, you can sign up. I think there's an email signup on there to learn more. LINDSEY: Perfect. All right. getthegoodz.com email sign up. To stay up to date on Goodz and the incubator, you can follow along on the thoughtbot blog. You know, as always, send us any questions you might have, and we're happy to get to those. But otherwise, thanks for listening. And thank you all — Jordyn, Chris, and Mike. Thanks so much for joining today and sharing and being open about your stories so far. MIKE: Thank you. CHRIS: Yeah, thank you, Lindsey. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Special Guests: Chris Cerrito and Mike Rosenthal.

Chris Hill, owner of HumblePod and host of the We Built This Brand podcast, joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss the future of podcasting and the role emerging technologies will play in the podcasting space. Chris describes why AI is struggling to make a big impact in the world of podcasting, and also emphasizes the importance of authenticity and finding a niche when producing a show. Corey and Chris discuss where video podcasting works and where it doesn't, and why it's more important to focus on the content of your podcast than the technical specs of your gear. Chris also shares insight on how to gauge the health of your podcast audience with his Podcast Listener Lifecycle evaluation tool.About ChrisChris Hill is a Knoxville, TN native and owner of the podcast production company, HumblePod. He helps his customers create, develop, and produce podcasts and is working with clients in Knoxville as well as startups and entrepreneurs across the United States, Silicon Valley, and the world.In addition to producing podcasts for nationally-recognized thought leaders, Chris is the co-host and producer of the award-winning Our Humble Beer Podcast and the host of the newly-launched We Built This Brand podcast. He also lectures at the University of Tennessee, where he leads non-credit courses on podcasts and marketing.  He received his undergraduate degree in business at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga where he majored in Marketing & Entrepreneurship, and he later received his MBA from King University.Chris currently serves his community as the President of the American Marketing Association in Knoxville. In his spare time, he enjoys hanging out with the local craft beer community, international travel, exploring the great outdoors, and his many creative pursuits.Links Referenced: HumblePod: https://www.humblepod.com/ HumblePod Quick Edit: https://humblepod.com/services/quick-edit Podcast Listener Lifecycle: https://www.humblepod.com/podcast/grow-your-podcast-with-the-listener-lifecycle/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/christopholies Transcript:Announcer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Are you navigating the complex web of API management, microservices, and Kubernetes in your organization? Solo.io is here to be your guide to connectivity in the cloud-native universe!Solo.io, the powerhouse behind Istio, is revolutionizing cloud-native application networking. They brought you Gloo Gateway, the lightweight and ultra-fast gateway built for modern API management, and Gloo Mesh Core, a necessary step to secure, support, and operate your Istio environment.Why struggle with the nuts and bolts of infrastructure when you can focus on what truly matters - your application. Solo.io's got your back with networking for applications, not infrastructure. Embrace zero trust security, GitOps automation, and seamless multi-cloud networking, all with Solo.io.And here's the real game-changer: a common interface for every connection, in every direction, all with one API. It's the future of connectivity, and it's called Gloo by Solo.io.DevOps and Platform Engineers, your journey to a seamless cloud-native experience starts here. Visit solo.io/screaminginthecloud today and level up your networking game.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. My returning guest probably knows more about this podcast than I do. Chris Hill is not only the CEO of HumblePod, but he's also the producer of a lot of my various media endeavors, ranging from the psychotic music videos that I wind up putting out to mock executives on their birthdays to more normal videos that I wind up recording when I'm forced into the studio and can't escape because they bar the back exits, to this show. Chris, thank you for joining me, it's nice to see you step into the light.Chris: It's a pleasure to be here, Corey.Corey: So, you have been, effectively, producing this entire podcast after I migrated off of a previous vendor, what four years ago? Five?Chris: About four or five years ago now, yeah. It's been a while.Corey: Time is a flat circle. It's hard to keep track of all of that. But it's weird that you and I don't get to talk nearly as much as we used to, just because, frankly, the process is working and therefore, you disappear into the background.Chris: Yeah.Corey: One of the dangerous parts of that is that the only time I ever wind up talking to you is when something has gone wrong somewhere and frankly, that does not happen anymore. Which means we don't talk.Chris: Yeah. And I'm okay with that. I'm just kidding. I love talking to you, Corey.Corey: Oh, I tolerate you. And every once in a while, you irritate me massively, which is why I'm punishing you this year by—Chris: [laugh].Corey: Making you tag along for re:Invent.Chris: I'm really excited about that one. It's going to be fun to be there with you and Jeremy and Mike and everybody. Looking forward to it.Corey: You know how I can tell that you've never been to re:Invent before?Chris: “I'm looking forward to it.”Corey: Exactly. You still have life in your eyes and a spark in your step. And yeah… that'll change. That'll change. So, a lot of this show is indirectly your fault because this is a weird thing for a podcaster to admit, but I genuinely don't listen to podcasts. I did when I was younger, back when I had what the kids today call ‘commute' or ‘RTO' as they start slipping into the office, but I started working from home almost a decade ago, and there aren't too many podcasts that fit into the walk from the kitchen to my home office. Like great, give me everything you want me to know in about three-and-a-half seconds. Go… and we're done. It doesn't work. So, I'm a producer, but I don't consume my own content, which I think generally is something you only otherwise see in, you know, drug dealers.Chris: Yeah. Well, and I mean, I think a lot of professional media, like, you get to a point where you're so busy and you're creating so much content that it's hard to sit down and review your own stuff. I mean, even at HumblePod, I'm in a place where we're producing our own show now called We Built This Brand, and I end up in a place where some weeks I'm like, “I can't review this. I approve it. You send it out, I trust you.” So, Corey, I'm starting to echo you in a lot of ways and it's just—it makes me laugh from time to time.Corey: Somewhat recently, I wound up yet again, having to do a check on, “Hey, you use HumblePod for your podcasting work. Do you like them?” And it's fun. It's almost like when someone reaches out about someone you used to work with. Like, “We're debating hiring this person. Should we?” And I love being able to give the default response for the people I've worked with for this long, which is, “Shut up and hire them. Why are you talking to me and not hiring them faster? Get on with it.”Because I'm a difficult customer. I know that. The expectations I have are at times unreasonably high. And the fact that I don't talk to you nearly as much as I used to shows that this all has been working. Because there was a time we talked multiple times a day back—Chris: Mm-hm.Corey: When I had no idea what I was doing. Now, 500-some-odd episodes in, I still have no idea what I'm doing, but by God, I've gotten it down to a science.Chris: Absolutely you have. And you know, technically we're over 1000 episodes together, I think, at this point because if you combine what you're doing with Screaming in the Cloud, with Last Week in AWS slash AWS Morning Brief, yeah, we've done a lot with you. But yes, you've come a long way.Corey: Yes, I have become the very whitest of guys. It works out well. It's like, one podcast isn't enough. We're going to have two of them. But it's easy to talk about the past. Let's talk instead about the future a little bit. What does the future of podcasting look like? I mean, one easy direction to go in with this, as you just mentioned, there's over 1000 episodes of me flapping my gums in the breeze. That feels like it's more than enough data to train an AI model to basically be me without all the hard work, but somehow I kind of don't see it happening anytime soon.Chris: Yeah, I think listeners still value authenticity a lot and I think that's one of the hard things you're seeing in podcasting as a whole is that these organizations come in and they're like, “We're going to be the new podcast killer,” or, “We're going to be the next thing for podcasting,” and if it's too overproduced, too polished, like, I think people can detect that and see that inauthenticity, which is why, like, AI coming in and taking over people's voices is so crazy. One of the things that's happening right now at Spotify is that they are beta testing translation software so that Screaming in the Cloud could automatically be in Spanish or Last Week in AWS could automatically be in French or what have you. It's just so surreal to me that they're doing this, but they're doing exactly what you said. It's language learning models that understand what the host is saying and then they're translating it into another language.The problem is, what if that automation gets that word wrong? You know how bad one wrong word could be, translating from Spanish or French or any other language from English. So, there's a lot of challenges to be met there. And then, of course, you know, once they've got your voice, what do they do with it? There's a lot of risk there.Corey: The puns don't translate very well, most of the time, either.Chris: Oh, yes.Corey: Especially when I mis-intentionally mispronounce words like Ku-BER-netees.Chris: Exactly. I mean, it's going to be auto-translated into text at some point before it's then put out as, you know, an audio source, and so if you say something wrong, it's going to be an issue. And Ku-BER-netees or Chat-Gippity or any of those great terms that you have, they're going to also be translated wrong as well, and that creates its own can of worms so to speak.Corey: Well, let me ask you something because you have always been one to embrace emerging technologies. It's one of the things I appreciate about you; you generally don't recommend solutions from the Dark Ages when it comes to what equipment should I have and how should I maintain it and the rest. But there are a lot of services out there that will now do automatic transcription and the service that you use at the moment remains a woman named Cecilia, who's remarkably good at what she does. But why have you not replaced her with a robot?Chris: [laugh]. Very simply put, I mean, it kind of goes back to what I was just saying about language translation. AI does not understand context for human words as well as humans do, and so words are wrong a lot of times in auto transcription. I mean, I can remember a time when, you know, we first started working with you all were, if there was one thing wrong in a transcript, an executive at AWS would potentially make fun of you on Twitter for it. And so, we knew we had to be on our A-game when it came to that, so finding someone who had that niche expertise of being able to translate not just words and understand words, but also understand tech terminology, you know, I think that that's, that's its own animal and its own challenge. So yeah, I mean, you could easily get away with something—Corey: Especially with my attentional mispronunciation where she's, “I don't quite know what you're saying here, and neither does the entire rest of the industry.” Like, “Postgres-squ—do you mean Postgres? Who the hell calls it Postgres-squeal?” I do. I call it that. Two warring pronunciations, I will unify them by coming up with a third that is far worse. It's kind of my shtick. The problem is, at some point, it becomes too inside-jokey when I have 15 words that I'm doing that too, and suddenly no one knows what the hell I'm talking about and the joke gets old quickly.Chris: Yep.Corey: So, I've tried to scale that back. But there are still a few that I… I can't help but play with.Chris: Yeah. And it's always fun bringing someone new in to work on—work with you all because they're always like, “What is he saying? Does he mean this?” And [laugh] it's always an adventure.Corey: It keeps life fun though.Chris: Absolutely.Corey: So, one thing that you did for a while, back when I was starting out, it almost felt like you were in cahoots with Big Microphone because once I would wind up getting a setup all working and ready for the recording, like, “Great. Everything working terrifically? Cool, throw it away. It's time for generation three of this.” I think I'm on, like, gen six, or gen seven now, but it's been relatively static for the past few years. Are the checks not as big as they used to be? I mean, if we hit a point of equilibrium? What's going on?Chris: Yeah, unfortunately, Big Microphone isn't paying what they used to. The economy and interest rates and all that, it's just making it hard. But once you get to a certain level of gear, it's going to be more important that you have good content than better and better gear. Could we keep going? Sure. If you wanted to buy a studio and you wanted to get Neumann microphones or something like that, we could keep going. But again, Big Microphone is not paying what they used to.Corey: When people reach out because they're debating starting a podcast and they ask me for advice, other than hire HumblePod, the next question they usually get around to is gear. And I don't think that they are expecting my answer, which is, it does not matter. Because if the content is good, the listeners will forgive an awful lot. You could record it into your iPhone in a quiet room and they will put up with that. Whereas if the content isn't good, it doesn't matter what the production value is because people are constantly being offered better things to do with their time. You've got to grab them, you have to be compelling to your target audience or the rest of it does not matter.Chris: Yeah. And I think that's the big challenge with audio is a lot of people get excited, especially I find this true of people in the tech industry of like, “Okay, I want to learn all the tech stuff, I love all the cool tech stuff, and so I'm going to go out and buy all this equipment first.” And then they spend $5,000 on equipment and they never record a single episode because they put all their time and energy into researching and buying gear and never thought about the content of the show. The truth is, you could start with your iPhone and that's it. And while I don't necessarily advise that, you'd be surprised at the quality of audio on an iPhone.I've had a client have to re-record something while they were traveling remotely and I said, “You just need to get your iPhone out.” They took their AirPods, plugged them in and, I said, “No. Take them out, use the microphone on the iPhone.” And you can start with something as simple as that. Now, once you want to start making it better, sure, that's a great way to grow and that does influence people staying with your podcast over time, but I think in the long run, content trumps all.Corey: One of the problems I keep seeing is that people also want to record a podcast because they have a great idea for a few episodes. My rule of thumb—because I've gotten this wrong before—is, okay, if you want to do a whole new podcast, come up with the first 12 episodes. Because two, three, four, of course, you've got your ideas. And then by the—you'll find in many cases, you're going to have a problem by the end of it. Years ago, I did a mini-series inside of AMB called “Networking in the Cloud” where it was sponsored by, at the time, ThousandEyes, before Cisco bought them and froze them in amber for all eternity.But it was fun for the first six episodes and then I realized I'd said all I needed to say about networking, and I was on the hook for six more. And Ivan Pepeinjak, who's his own influencer type in the BGP IP space was like, “This is why you should stay in your lane. He's terrible. He got it all wrong.” Like, “Great. Come on and tell me exactly how I got it wrong,” because I was trying to approach it from a very surface topical area, but BGP is one of those areas where I get very wrapped around my own axle just because I've never used it in anger. Being able to pivot the show format is what saved me on that. But if I had started doing this as its own individual podcast and launched, it would have died on the vine, just because it would not have had enough staying power and I didn't have the interest to continue working on it. Could someone else come up with a networking-in-the-cloud podcast that had hundreds of episodes? Absolutely, but those people are what we call competent and good at things in a way that I very much am not.Chris: Yep. And I completely agree. I mean, 12 is my default number, so—I'm not going to take credit for your saying 12, but I know we've talked about that before. And—Corey: It was a 12-episode miniseries is why. And I remember by ten, I had completely scraped the bottom of the barrel. Then Ivan saved me on one of them, and then I did, I think, a mini-series-in-review, which is cheating but worked.Chris: Yeah. I remember that, the trials and travails of giving that out. It was fun, though. But with that, yeah, like, 12 is a good number because, like, to your point, if you have 12 and you want to do a monthly show, you've got a year's worth of content, if you do bi-weekly, that's six months, and if it's a weekly show, it's at least a quarter's worth of content. So, it does help you think through and at least come up with any potential roadblocks you might have by at least listing out, here's what episodes one, two, three, four, five and so on would be. And so, I do think that's a great approach.Corey: And don't be an idiot like I was and launch a newsletter and then podcast that focus on last week's news because you can't work ahead on that. If you can, why are you not a multi-billionaire for playing the markets? If you can predict the future, there's a more lucrative career for you than podcasting, I promise. But that means that I have to be on the treadmill on some level. I've gotten it down to a point where I can stretch it to ten days. I can take ten days off if I preload, do it as early as I possibly can beforehand and then as late as I possibly can when I return. Anything more than that, I'm either skipping a week or delaying the show or have to get a guest author or artist in.Chris: Yeah. And you definitely need that time off, and so that's the one big challenge, I think with podcasting, too, is like you create this treadmill for yourself that you constantly have to fill content after content after content. I think that's one of the big challenges in podcasting and one of the reasons we see so many podcasts fade out. I don't know if you're familiar, but there is a term called podfade, which is just that: people burning out, fading out in their excitement for a podcast. And most podcasters fade out by episode seven or eight, somewhere in that range, so to see someone go for say, like, you have 500 episodes plus, we're talking about a ton of good content. You've found your rhythm, you've found your groove. That can do it. But yeah, it's always, always a challenge staying motivated.Corey: One thing that consistently surprises me is that the things I care about as the creator and the things the audience cares about are not the same. And you have to be respectful of your audience's time. I've done the numbers on the shows that I put out and it's something on the order of over a year of human time for every episode that I put out. If I'm going to take a year from humanity's collective lifetimes in order to say my inane thoughts, then I have to be respectful of the audience's time. Which means, “Oh, I'm going to have a robot do it so I don't have to put the work in.” It doesn't work that way. That's not how you sustain.Chris: Right. In and again, it takes out that humanity that makes podcasting so special and makes that connection with even the listener so special. And I'm sure you've experienced this too. When you go to re:Invent, like, we're going to have here in just a few short months, people know you, and they probably say things and bring up things that you haven't even thought about. And you're like, “Where did you even learn that I did that?” And then you realize, “Oh, I said that on a podcast episode.”Corey: Yeah. What's weird is I don't get much feedback online for it, but people will talk to me in depth about the show. They'll come up to me near constantly and talk about it. They don't reach out the same way, which I guess makes sense. There are a couple of podcasts that I've really admired and listened to on and off in the car for years, but I've never reached out to the creators because I feel like I would sound ridiculous. It's not true. I know intellectually it's not true, but it feels weird to do it.Chris: One of the ways I got into podcasting was a podcast that just invited me to—you know, invited their listeners to sign up and engage with them. And I think that's something in the medium that does make it interesting is once you do engage, you find out that these creators respond. And where else do you get that, you know? If you're watching a big TV show and you tweet at somebody online that you admire in the show, the chance of them even liking what you said about them online is very slim to none. But with podcasting, there's just a different level of accessibility I find with most productions and most shows that makes it really something special.Corey: One thing that still surprises me—and I don't think I've ever been this explicit about it on the show, but why the hell not I have nothing to hide—Thursday evening, 5 p.m. Pacific time. That's when the automation fires and rotates everything for the newsletter and the AWS Morning Brief. Anything that comes in after that, unless I manually do an override, will not be in the next week's issue; it'll be the week after.That applies to Security as well, which means 5 p.m. on Thursday, it seals it, I write and record it and it goes ou—that particular one goes out Thursday morning the following week. And no one has ever said anything about this seems awfully late. Occasionally, there's been news the day before and someone said, “Oh, why didn't you include this?”And it's because, believe it or not, I don't just type this in and hit the send button. There's a bit more to it than that these days. But people don't need the sense of immediacy. This idea of striving to be first is not sustainable and it leads to terrible outcomes. My entire philosophy has not been to have the first take but rather the best take.Chris: Mm-hm.Corey: Sometimes I even get it right.Chris: And I mean in podcasting, too. Like, it's about, you serve a certain niche, right? Like, the people who are interested in AWS services and in this world of cloud computing listen to what you say, listen to the people you interview, and really enjoy those conversations. But that's not everybody in the world. That's not a very broad audience. And so, I think that those niches really serve a purpose.And the way I've always thought about it is, like, if you go to the grocery store, you know how you always have that rack of magazines with the most random interests? That's essentially what podcasting is. It's like each podcast is a different magazine that serves someone's random—and hyper-specific sometimes—niche interest in things. I mean, the number of things you can find podcasts on is just ridiculous. And I think the same is true for this. But the people who do follow, they're very serious, they're very dedicated, they do listen, and yeah, I think it's just a fascinating, fascinating thing.Corey: The way that I see it has been that I've been learning more from the audience and the things that people say that most people would believe, but… I make a lot of mistakes doing this, but talking to people does tend to shine a light on a lot of this. But enough about the past. Most of my episodes are about things that have previously happened. What does the future of podcasting look like? Where's it going from here?Chris: Oh, man. Well, I think the big question on everybody's mind is, do I need a video podcast? And I think that for most people, that's where the big question lies right now. I get a lot of questions about it, I get people reaching out, and I think the short answer to that is… not really. Or to answer a question I know you love, Corey, it depends.And the reason for that is, there's a lot with the tech of podcasting that just isn't going to distribute to everywhere, all at once anymore. The beauty of podcasting is that it's all based on an RSS feed. If you build an RSS feed and you put it in Apple Podcasts and Spotify, that RSS feed will distribute everywhere and it will distribute your audio everywhere. And what we see happening right now, and really one of the bigger challenges in podcasting, is that the RSS feed only provides audio. Technically, that's not accurate, but it does for most services.So, YouTube has recently come out and said that they are going to start integrating RSS feeds, so you'll be able to do those audiogram-esque things that a lot of people have done through apps like Headliner and stuff for a long time, or even their podcast host may automatically translate a version of their audio podcast into a video and just do, like, a waveform. They're going to have that in YouTube. TikTok is taking a similar approach. And they're both importing just the audio. And the reason I said earlier, that's technically not accurate is because RSS feeds can also support MP4s, but neither service is going to accept that or ingest it directly into their service from what you provide outbound.So, it's a very interesting time because it feels like we're getting there with video, but we're still not there, and we're still probably several years off from it. So, there's a lot of interest in video and I think the future is going to be video, but I think it's going to be a combination, too, with audio because who wants to sit and watch something for an hour-and-a-half when you're used to listening to it your commute or while you do the dishes or any number of other things that don't involve having your eyeballs directly on the content.Corey: We've tried it with this show. I found that it made the recording process a bit more onerous because everyone is suddenly freaking out about how they look and I can't indulge my constant nose-picking habit. Kidding. So, it was more work, I had to gussy myself up a bit more than dressing like a slob like I do some mornings because I do have young children and a deadline to get them to school by. But I never saw the audience to materialize there and be worth it.Because watching a video of two people talking with each other, it feels too much like a Zoom call that you can't participate in, so what's the point?Chris: Right.Corey: So, there's that. There's the fact that I also have very intentionally built most of what I do around newsletters and podcasts because at least so far, those are not dependent upon algorithmic discovery in the same way. I don't have to bias for things that YouTube likes this month. Instead, I can focus on the content that people originally signed up to hear me put out and I don't have to worry about it in the same way. Email predates me, it'll be here long after I'm gone, and that seems to make sense.I also look at how I have consumed podcasts, and times when I do, it's almost always while I'm doing something else. And if I have to watch a screen, that becomes significantly more distracting, and harder for me to find the time to do it with.Chris: I think what you're seeing is that, like, there's some avenues to where video podcasting is really good and really interesting, and I think the real place where that works best right now is in-person interviews. So, Corey, if you went out and interviewed Andy Jassy in person in Seattle, that to me would be something that would warrant bringing the cameras out for and putting online because people would want to see you in the office interacting with him. That would be interesting. To your point, during the Zoom calls and things like that, you end up in a place where people just aren't as interested in sitting and watching the Zoom call. And I think that's something that is a clear distinction to make.Entertainment, comedy, doing things in person, I think that's where the real interest in video is and that's why I don't think video will be for everybody all the time. The thing that is starting to come up as well is discoverability, and that has always been a challenge, but as we get into—and we probably don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but you know, what's happened to Twitter and X, like, discoverability is becoming more of a challenge because they're limiting access to that platform. They're limiting discoverability if you're not willing to pay for a blue checkmark. They're doing all these things to make it harder for small independent podcasts to grow.And the places that are opening up for it to grow are places like YouTube, places like TikTok, that have the ability to not only just put your full podcasts online now, but you can actually do, like, YouTube shorts or highlighted clips, and directly link those back to the long-form content that you're producing. So, there is some value in it, there is a technology and a future there for it, but it's just a very complicated time to be in podcasting and figuring out where to go to grow. That's probably the biggest challenge that we face and I think ultimately, that just comes down to developing an audience outside of these social media channels.Corey: One thing that you were talking about a while back in a conversation that I don't think I've ever followed up with you on—and there's no time like in front of a bunch of public people to do that—Chris: [laugh].Corey: You were talking to me about something that you were calling the Podcast Listener Lifecycle.Chris: Yes.Corey: What's your point on that?Chris: So, the Listener Lifecycle is something I developed, just to be frank, working with you guys, learning from you all, and also my background in marketing, and in building audiences and things, from my own podcasts and other things that I did prior to building HumblePod, led me to a place of going, how can we best explain to a client where their podcast is? How does it exist? Where does it exist? All that good stuff. And basically, the Listener Lifecycle is just that.It's a design—and we'll have links to it because I actually did a whole podcast season on the Listener Lifecycle from beginning to end, so that's probably the easiest way to talk about it. But essentially, it's the idea of, you're curious about a show, and how do you go from being curious about a show to exploring a podcast, to then becoming a follower of the podcast, literally clicking the Follow button. What does it take to get through each one of those stages? How can you identify where your audience is? And basically, it's a tool you can use to say, “Well, this is where my listener is in the stages.” And then once they get to be a follower, how do I build them into something more?Well, get them to be a subscriber, subscribe to a newsletter, subscribe to a Patreon or Substack or whatever that subscription service is that you prefer to use, and get them off of just being on social media and following you there and following you in a podcast audio form. Because things can happen: your podcast host could break and you'd lose your audience, right? We've seen Twitter, which we may have thought years ago that it would never go away, and now we don't know how long it's going to be there. It could be gone by the time we're done with this conversation for all we know. I've got all my notifications turned off, so we're basically in a liminal space at this point.But with that said, there's a lot of risk in audiences changing and things like that, so audience portability is really important. So, the more you can collect email addresses, collect contact information, and communicate with that group of people, the better your audience is going to be. And so, that's what it's about is helping people get to that stage where they can do that so that they don't lose audiences and so that they can even build and grow audiences beyond that to the point where they get to the last phase, which is the ‘true fan' phase. And that's where you get people who love your show, retweet everything you do, repost everything you do, and share it with all their friends every time you're creating new content. And that's ultimately what you want: those die-hard people that come up to you and know everything about you at re:Invent, those are the people that you want to create more of because they're going to help you grow your show and your audience, ultimately. So, that's what it's about. I know that's a lot. But again, like, we'll have a link in the show notes to where you can learn more about it.Corey: Indeed, we will. Normally I'm the one that says, “And we'll include a link to that in the show notes.” But you're the one that has to actually make all that happen. Here's another glimpse behind the curtain. I have a Calendly link that I pass out to people to book time on the show. They fill out the form, which is relatively straightforward and low effort by design, and the next time I think about it is ten minutes beforehand when it pops up with, “Hey, you have a recording to go to.” Great. I book an hour for a half-hour recording. I wind up going through this entire conversation. When we're done, we close out the episode, we chat a bit, I close the tab, and I don't think about it again, it's passed off to you folks entirely. It is the very whitest of white glove treatments. Because I, once again, am the very whitest of white guys.Chris: We aim to please [laugh].Corey: Exactly. Because I remember before this, I used to have things delayed by months because I would forget to copy the freaking file into Dropbox, of all things. And that was just wild to me.Chris: And we stay on you about that because we want to make sure that your show gets out and—Corey: And now it automatically transfers and I—when the automation works—I don't have to think about it again. What is fun to me is despite all the time that I spend in enterprise cloud services, we still use things that are prosumer, like Dropbox and other things that are human-centric because for some reason, most of your team are not also highly competent cloud developers. And I still think it is such a miss that something like S3, which would be perfect for this, requires that level of engineering. And I have more self-respect than that. I'd have to build some stuff in order to make that work effectively on my end, let alone folks who have actual jobs that don't involve messing around with cloud services all day.But it blows my mind that there's still such this gulf between things that sound like you would have one of your aging parents deal with versus something that is extraordinarily capable and state-of-the-art. I know they're launching a bunch of things like Amazon's IVS, which is a streaming offering, a lot of their elemental offerings for media packaging, but I look at it, it's like wow, not only is this expensive, it doesn't solve any problems that we actually have and would add significant extra steps to every part of it. Thanks, but no thanks. And sure, maybe we're not the target market, but I can't shake the feeling that there are an awful lot of people like us that fit that profile.Chris: Yeah. And I mean, you bring up a good point about not using S3, things like that. It has occurred to me as well that, hey, maybe we should find somebody to help us develop a technology like this to make it easier on us on the back end to do all the recording and the production in one place, one database, and be able to move on. So, at some point I would love to get there. That's probably a conversation for after the podcast, Corey, but definitely is something that we've been thinking about at HumblePod is, how do we reach that next step of making it even easier on our clients?Corey: Well, it is certainly appreciated. But again, remember, your task is to continue to perform the service excellently, not be the poster child for cloud services with dumb names.Chris: [laugh]. Yes, yes. And I'm sure we could come up with a bunch.Corey: One last question before we wind up calling in an episode. I know that I've been emphasizing the white glove treatment that I get—and let's be clear, you are not inexpensive, but you're also well worth it; you deliver value extraordinarily for our needs—do you offer things that are not quite as, we'll call it, high-touch and comprehensive?Chris: Yes, we do actually. We just recently launched a new service called Quick Edit and it's just that. It's still humans touching the service, so it's not a bunch of automated, hey, we're just running this through an AI program and it's going to spit it out on the other end. We actually have a human that touches your audio, cleans it up, and sends it back. And yeah, we're there to make sure that we can clean things up quickly and easily and affordably for those folks that are just in a pinch.Maybe you edit most weeks and you're just tired of doing the editing, maybe you're close to podfading and you just want an extra boost to see if you can keep the show going. That's what we have the Quick Edit service for. And that starts at $150 an episode and we'll edit up to 45 minutes of audio for you within that. And yeah, there's some other options available as well if you start to add more stuff, but just come check us out. You can go to humblepod.com/services/quick-edit and find that there.Corey: And we will, of course, put links to that in the show notes. Or at least you will. I certainly won't.Chris: [laugh].Corey: Chris, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me. If people want to learn more, other than hunting you down at re:Invent, which they absolutely should do, where's the best place for them to find you?Chris: I mean@HumblePod anywhere is the quickest, easiest way to find me anywhere—or at least find the business—and you can find me at @christopholies. And we'll have a link to that in the show notes for sure because it's not worth spelling out on the podcast.Corey: I would have pronounced it chris-to-files, but that's all right. That's how it works.Chris: [laugh].Corey: Thank you so much, Chris for everything that you do, as well as suffering my nonsensical slings and arrows for the last half hour. We'll talk soon.Chris: You're welcome, Corey.Corey: Chris Hill, CEO at HumblePod. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you hated this episode, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry, insulting comment that I'm sure Chris or one of his colleagues will spend time hunting down from all corners of the internet to put into a delightful report, which I will then never read.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

Finding that secret sauce can lead to success, but it's not always easy to find. In this episode of the Class E Podcast, we talked with Chris Sexton, founder of the barbecue catering company, Sexton's Smoke-N-Grill. From learning countless lessons in the Greenville Starts program to dealing with personal health concerns, Sexton discusses the future of his company, how he has become more appreciative of his skills, and the importance of keeping priorities straight as an entrepreneur. Guest: Chris Sexton Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sextonsmokingrill Host: Mary Sturgill Producer: Isabella Martinez '24   TRANSCRIPT:  MARY: Hi there, everyone. Welcome to this episode of the Class E Podcast. You know, this is the podcast that is brought to you through a partnership between the Hill Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Communication Studies Department here at Furman University.  Today's episode is part of the everyday entrepreneur series in which we talk to entrepreneurs who have graduated from our GVL Starts program. And the reason that we're doing that is we want you to hear their stories and be inspired by them wherever they are in the process of their venture. So today we have a very special guest, Chris Sexton, who is the owner of Sexton Smoke-N-Grill, and a new venture that he's calling Mr. Sauce It Up. Chris, welcome to the show.  CHRIS: Thank you for having me. Thank you for having me.  MARY: Chris, I'm so happy that you were able to join us today because one - I'm gonna look right into the camera for the YouTube people - Chris' food is amazing. Now when I was in, you know, I was a broadcaster for 20 years, and when I was in Texas, the broadcasters and you know different people in the community, they call us celebrities or whatever, but we had to judge barbecue competitions. So I've judged many a barbecue competition in my life. And Chris' is by far the best of any that I have done and it all boils down to the sauce, which I imagine is where the Mr. Sauce It Up came from.  CHRIS: That is exactly where Mr. Sauce came from. I've created a new sauce using fruit, alcohol, and just a wide imagination to come up with different sauces. We've got about 10 to 15 sauces that we do.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: All incorporating fruits and alcohol like I said. Like you can take Hennessy bourbon… MARY: Don't give your whole secret away.  CHRIS: No, everything's not coming, but we've got great stuff coming.  MARY: We don't want people to copy it. And you will want to once you taste this, you'll want to try to redo this at home. Tell us about how you got started with this. Because you're in finance.  CHRIS: I'm in finance. So to be honest with you, from working in finance, I've always had a passion for cooking. I started cooking when I was like 14 years old working at a little restaurant in Greer with legendary Peggy Davis. She owns Peggy's Diner in Greer. Started working with her, handing out trays… and I kind of fell in love with that whole environment of cooking, creating. Did that all the way through high school… worked at McDonald's. But the sauce and the cooking came from truly talking on the phone with a guy from Mississippi on the phone about a car deal.  MARY: Oh, wow. CHRIS:  And he asked me what I was doing for Thanksgiving. I told him I was going to try fried turkey. He said you need to smoke it.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And that day, I smoked a duck, a turkey and a…a duck, a turkey, and a Boston butt.  MARY: Wow.  CHRIS: And they all came out great.  MARY: Yeah. On your first time. CHRIS: On my first time, it came out great. Not perfect, but great. MARY: Right.   CHRIS: But it was addictive. It was like it was something that…it's what I needed at that point in time to slow me down and give me some perspective. MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And from there it's just kind of bloomed and grown from there.  MARY: Yeah. What inspired you? Was it just the conversation with him or have you always… I mean, you've kind of always been a little a foodie. CHRIS: A foodie.  MARY: I mean, I consider you a foodie.  CHRIS: So what really inspired me is the process.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: I fell in love with it. And I'm a person that loves serving people. So getting to feed people, seeing smiles on their face, people honestly patting your back saying this is the best barbecue I've ever had.  MARY: And there are some smiles when they eat your stuff.  CHRIS: And it's encouraging. So the sauce idea actually came… I made a dish, not gonna say what dish it is, and my mom tried it and when she got done, she says “man, this would be good on some chicken wings.” MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And so me being who I am, it took me like three years… I sat there and thought about it and one day while I was at work, all my great ideas come on the clock… So I was sitting there one day and I'm like bingo. I figured out how to do it, I tried it, and I kind of took it off from there.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And that's… the biggest thing about my barbecue is it's different. MARY: Yeah. It totally is.  CHRIS: And I refuse to do what everybody else does. And my goal with my business is to create a new space in a traditional market.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: When you go to restaurants and you go places… that's the other thing that inspired me…I'm tired of eating vinegar based, tomato based, mustard based barbecue sauces. You know, I want something different and so that's what we've done. MARY: So you have…how many sauces did you say now?   CHRIS: Got around 10 or 15 sauces. MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: The newest…the newest sauce that I'm working on would be a Carolina white sauce. Carolina is known for that fruit flavor for peaches and things of that nature.  MARY: Right.  CHRIS: So imagine taking your traditional yum yum sauce mixed in with a little bit of fruit.  MARY: Oh yeah.  CHRIS: And we're working on that and actually combining the smoked brisket and pulled pork with fried rice with that yum yum sauce.  MARY: Oh my gosh. My mouth is watering.   CHRIS: So, yeah. Look for us on Tik Tok soon. MARY: Yeah, there you go. When we were in the… we were in Greenville Starts cohort together, and the first time I tasted Chris's sauce, I was like, “Chris, you need to call this the best damn sauce ever.”  CHRIS: That is actually the slogan. “The best damn sauce you've ever had.”  MARY: Yeah. Yeah. I love it. CHRIS: I tell people… I'm trying to be humble, but when you have something that's different, you have to let people know.  MARY: Exactly.  CHRIS: And this is when you taste it, it just… it kind of shocks you because you're not… you're thinking barbecue sauce.  MARY: Totally.  CHRIS: But it kind of just catches you… you're like what is this?  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And it just kind of sucks you in.  MARY:  Well, and I think you just said it correct. You're taking a space that is so kind of entrenched in kind of the flavors that are there. And you're creating something new with the idea of barbecue. And I love that. Can you talk us through the process of creating this business because I guess you started with the smoking first and then the sauces and then where are you… how, you know…do you have a website? Do you have a restaurant? How are you coming together?   CHRIS: What we're doing now is… So this is how I initially started out. I was at my desk at Ford one day having a conversation with someone that asked me about catering.  MARY:Yeah.  CHRIS: So I hopped online, in between calls, looking at what I had to do to get started so I went online, I got my EIN…and kind of got in touch with state and got everything going. MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: That was in 2016. So for the last three years off and on, I've done a lot of catering. A lot of on site. My biggest thing is on site grilling. MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: I put on quite a show when I grill.  MARY: I mean you can tell with his personality. You're the entertainment and the food.  CHRIS: So yeah, if you're looking for an entertainer and a grill master, I'm your guy. So we… that's my big thing is I travel, I take my grill, I like to set up shop.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And I also work with… I've been working… I had been working before I took my current job with the church during the Wednesday night Bible studies. I'm big on… like I said my dad is a Baptist preacher.  MARY: Right. CHRIS: So we grew up in the country and all I know is fellowship and eating. I've probably eaten in every county in the state.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: Every, every type of food you can have, but those experiences is what inspired me. But long story short, the business idea and the model came from just three years of having to stop and go because working back and forth, and now learning how to balance time, family, and everything. The Mr. Sauce It Up will give me the opportunity to kind of work and service people and enjoy it and also make my first big shine through Mr. Sauce It Up.  MARY: Yeah. So I want to talk a little bit about… because entrepreneurial, you know, ventures are, it's a journey, right? And I know we all have setbacks, and I know that you've had some setbacks, including a health setback for a while that kind of made everything go on pause. So how are you doing now? And let's talk about the setbacks and how you overcame them.  CHRIS: Oh, wow. So it's crazy the night that we had our finale. Our, you know, our big pitch.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: I found out I had a nodule on my thyroid that they had to go in and remove. They thought it was small, but it ended up being like the size of a baseball. MARY: Wow. CHRIS: So it sat on my chest and it kind of impacted me. Dealing with things like that… it impacts…your thyroid is your gas and keeps you going. MARY: Yeah, yeah.  CHRIS: So for like the last three years, I've ran on nothing but adrenaline and you didn't know it. So it's taken me a little… little bit of time to adjust to being normal and not having that excess energy and just you know being actually knowing what it feels like to be tired and having to take a nap. MARY: Right. CHRIS: So for the last six, you know, part of that I ran on you know pretty much adrenaline because the thyroid and I were back balanced. Kind of and it… but it gave me an opportunity to really sit back and refocus and re-  kind of gave me a bigger hunger for what I want to do. I've looked at food trucks, and things like that, but a crazy and a funny fact about me is I've had 22 wrecks in my lifetime.  MARY: 22 wrecks? CHRIS: 22 automobile accidents.  MARY: Oh my goodness, Chris. CHRIS: So me driving a food truck probably nobody around here wants.  MARY: They don't mix.  CHRIS: That's not a good mix so I'm in the process of trying to find a building either…. I would prefer Greenville, but the Spartanburg area is also something I'm open to… to certainly barbecue out of. But until then, I'm gonna let myself and also cakes and sweet potato pies…  MARY: Yeah. Oh my god. Sweet potato pies.  CHRIS: …kind of feed my business and my picture while I kind of work my nine to five and do your day in and day out thing.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: The struggle. You know, being an entrepreneur… it takes a… you got to have a little bit of crazy in you to be an entrepreneur. But the biggest thing you have to have to be an entrepreneur is being resilient.  MARY: Yes. CHRIS: You never know what obstacles are gonna come your way. I never expected and never thought I was sick MARY: Right. You had no idea.  CHRIS: I had no idea. You know, and even through it, you got to, you know, one of the mottos I live off of is fake it till you make it.  MARY: Right.  CHRIS: You got to go into every day, no matter what's going on, with a smile on your face, press through. And you kind of put it behind you and live in that moment because you never know life can be taken from you at any given moment. So you got to enjoy it no matter what's going on. And that's what's kind of helped me evolve and get to the point that I'm at now. And for me, I've learned you know, when things are going… when things are going at their best is when things…your biggest hurdles are going to come. MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: For me, I spent all last year partnering with people and creating a lot of partnerships I kind of had to give up. So to kind of reinvent myself and roll back out and rebrand as Mr. Sauce It Up, it's going to be really exciting and I think it's the right way and path to go. The biggest thing I can tell other entrepreneurs is don't be stubborn.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: For a whole course, through Greenville Starts, everybody told me, “it's the sauce, it's the sauce, it's the sauce.”  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: And I love cooking. I love grilling.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And a couple of weeks ago… I'd say a couple of months ago, it finally dawned on me “Hey, you've got a product that nobody else can do.” MARY: Right. CHRIS: This is your…this is your headline and this is your angle. I'll still grill and barbecue and do barbecue and whatnot. But…I have a gift that I gotta give the world.   MARY: Right. That's your foot in the door -  think the barbecue, but the sauce is so scalable. I mean it gives me goosebumps just thinking about where you could go and seeing this on grocery store shelves. I mean it really does. CHRIS: That's my ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to… MARY: I mean I literally just got goosebumps.  CHRIS: We've got here in Greenville…we've got we've got the Duke's manufacturing. I want to have something similar to that here just pumping out sauce so hopefully when you're getting you know your Chick fil A… go to McDonald's get a sauce packet, and you'll see my pretty face on it. MARY: I love it. I love it. And you said some really good things about there in that comment about being resilient and not being stubborn. And I think being willing to go with the flow because I know you were in talks about a space right when you got sick. And so every… I mean literally everything went on hold.  CHRIS: So with the space…this is another thing that when in the restaurant business, it's a risky business… MARY: It is.  CHRIS: For me, the biggest thing is finding people that want to invest and that will roll the dice on a restaurant. MARY: And that's true for all restaurant owners.  CHRIS: That's been the biggest challenge, but the buildings I looked at have been highly competitive.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: I looked at a property in Duncan… was looking at property in Duncan and somebody came in at the last minute and outbid me by like 30 grand.  MARY: Right. Wow.  CHRIS: And being in finance and being the underwriter you… the risk… I'm very careful if that's the risk I take and I evaluate it making sure I'm making solid decisions.  MARY: And you understand that risk.  CHRIS: Yeah, because being in business for yourself, is a risk alone. MARY: Absolutely. CHRIS: You don't want your business upside down and trying to make back money that you may not be able to get back. That's not a wise move so we kind of backed off a bit. And it's been a blessing because like I said had I got into it then, gotten sick, we would have been in a worse situation. So thankfully, we got into a position where we're able to press pause and my true belief is that when my opportunity and my time is there, it's gonna happen but until then we're just gonna keep doing what we have to do.  MARY: One hundred percent. One hundred percent. So what's been the most rewarding thing about starting this venture for you? CHRIS: Networking and meeting new people.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And to be honest with you, the other thing people don't know about me is I'm kind of shy.  MARY: I don't believe that for a minute. Because the first night we were in Greenville Starts together, I mean, we clicked, obviously but…but yeah, no. But you, probably like me, I have to overcome it when I'm with people. Once I get there, I'm fine.  CHRIS: So I guess you can say my shyness comes out different. When I get nervous and get shy, it's like lights on, like camera on, game on, let's go. So you never really know it. So I embrace it. And being able to… this has taught me how to fight through that and how it really… I guess having a good time meeting new people and the biggest thing I think I'd say is just learn. Being an entrepreneur has taught me so much and it has stretched my limits. And so when I was younger, I was a hothead. MARY: I believe that.  CHRIS: Something happened… something happened and I'm, you know, fired up. MARY:  Right. CHRIS: So for instance, a couple of weeks ago, my first time back out and I go to leave and my grill catches a flat tire.  MARY: Oh, no. Yeah.  CHRIS: And the old me would have been saying Sunday School words and throwing stuff and all upset. We just pressed pause and regrouped and it has made me grow and develop patience. And understand that some things you cannot control. If you can't control it, you just move on.  MARY: I would think that this entrepreneurial process that you're on, and that health scare, that major health scare, probably both had something to do with that kind of, okay, it does no good to get upset about this stuff, just deal with it one thing at a time. CHRIS: Well there's another factor in there also. I've got a grandson now.  MARY: Oh yes, that's true. Happy Grandfather.  CHRIS: So, being a grand dad, it kind of…I would say the moment I took my daughter to the hospital.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: Got the call. I had to take her to the hospital. That's when life changed.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: We just kind of… I don't know it's something about having a grandchild that you can give back to them.  MARY: Right.  CHRIS: It kind of changes you. At the same time, it just shows your new appreciation for life. So all of that within the three month period, it really has slowed me down… made me appreciate life even more. But at the same time, it's made me a fighter. It's really made me a fighter and made me...  MARY: Yeah, because you want to be around for him. CHRIS: Yeah, to be honest with you, this whole get up, I've thought about for the last four years.  MARY: Yeah, this is what it's gonna look like. CHRIS: Yeah. And going through that experience gave me the courage to kind of step out of the shell and put it out there and move forward because what's the worst thing that can happen? Somebody will laugh at you? MARY: Right. Exactly.  CHRIS: You know at the end of the day, this is who I am.  MARY: And who cares? If they're laughing at you, they're looking at you?  CHRIS: They're looking at you. They're going to remember.  MARY: Right.  CHRIS: This is who I am. A little country guy from South Carolina just trying to sell some good barbecue and sauce.  MARY: Yeah, I love it. Chris, I love it. So we were, like I said we were in the Greenville cohort, Greenville starts cohort together, and for those of you may not know that's like an eight week program where the participants could expose everything from, you know, fundraising, capital to legal issues and things that of course, you're not an expert in everything, right? And so we learned so much to marketing. I mean, you name it, we touched on it in that class. What were some of the takeaways from that that you are implementing now? Almost a year later.   CHRIS: Want to hear a good story? MARY: Yeah always.  CHRIS: It kind of goes with the question you asked me previously about my experience.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: Do you remember the night that we wrote the breakup letter?  MARY: Yes. We had to write a breakup letter to our business. And you know, you're the second person to bring this up in these conversations, but his breakup letter was amazing. But go ahead.  CHRIS: I lived my breakup letter this year. And that night, the night that we had read that letter out loud and share that experience…  MARY: Yeah.   CHRIS: I lived it this year. And going through it and living it and seeing your dreams kind of, let's just say be taken away.  MARY: Yeah, yeah.  CHRIS: It makes you appreciate your gifts and it makes you appreciate what you did. So, without Greenville Starts, I probably wouldn't have pushed through this year. I probably would have gave up and just gone back to working the nine to five and just you know enjoy life but my experience with Greenville Starts and having to, you know, go through a made breakup with something that you love and then having to go through it actually, it kind of gave you…I can go back and I can remember some of the speeches that the speakers gave. I will say it gave me motivation and courage and more than anything else it taught me that I'm not a know it all. I've worked in the banking industry for years as a banker and on the other side of the fence, telling people no to loans and being actually on the opposite end of it - trying to be approved, trying to get all your documents together gives you a whole new appreciation for what people on the other side go through. We've been on both sides. I have an appreciation for both now. But I will say that Greenville Starts… it gave me the courage to bounce back and gave me that fight and it prepared me for the hurdles that were ahead. So if anybody in Greenville County has a business idea and they feel like they can make it, but their confidence is an issue, I would definitely recommend Greenville Starts. We have the all-American, the GOAT, the great, the best hair, Brian Davis. He just…has a way of inspiring…inspiring you. Like just…any of our cohorts, I think about you guys and where you're at and I see your successes and it motivates you. You see other people being successful and that pushes you on.  MARY: One hundred percent. Which is the whole reason we do this podcast is to share your all's stories with the public so that we can encourage other people to go ahead and follow their dreams and create their ventures, you know, and I mean, you talk about Greenville Starts being an inspiration, you're an inspiration to, I know our entire cohort.  CHRIS: I appreciate it. I appreciate it. I think, you know, God puts you in a certain place at a certain time. And I think I feel like that was a perfect time because like going into it, I'll be honest with you toward the end of class I kind of felt like something was off. It drained me. It drained me. It put me… I don't like talking about this aspect of it, but it impacted my mental health.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: It gave me some anxiety and put me in a depressive state and it you know, that's not me. MARY: Right. CHRIS: One hundred miles per hour, 100 days a week.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: So at the end of the class, it was like okay, what we got going on? And you guys really pushed us through. It's like a family. It's not just like a class. It's not just like a group of people. It feels like family and a cheerleader group.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: I've coached football, played football. I love sports and I love that team aspect. And that's what it felt like. Each week it wasn't a competition against each other. It was a way that we can push each other…push each other to make each other better. It's been a year and a half now. And when you can go back and recall specific conversations and specifics in a needed time, that's when you know it had an impact on you. That's what Greenville Starts said to me.  MARY: Yeah. CHRIS: It put a lot of information in this encyclopedia up here.  MARY: Yeah. I love that. I love that. What advice do you have to other entrepreneurs that you… either from Greenville Starts or just your personal experience?  CHRIS: I'm going to steal one from Ted Lasso.  MARY: Okay.  CHRIS: The great Ted Lasso. You got to believe. And what he also says…that's number one is believe.You got to believe in yourself. You got to believe in the process and you got to trust, you know, that the good Lord put you in a position he gave you whatever gifts that you have for a reason. And you have to follow the plan in your process. When things get hard, you got to go harder.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: And when things get easy, you got to kind of scratch your head and say, why is that so easy and know that something's coming. MARY: Right. Be prepared.  CHRIS: Be prepared because something's around the corner. The other thing is, I'm a Florida State fan. And the reason I'm a Florida State fan is because of…He talked about a lot about what you do when people aren't watching.  MARY: Yes.  CHRIS: And as an entrepreneur… it's what you're doing behind the scenes and when people aren't watching is what's going to make you successful. You know, the… you know, I cook a brisket 26 hours for it to be gone in 30 minutes.  MARY: Right.  CHRIS: So it's what I do behind the scenes and the effort and what people don't see is what makes you a great entrepreneur and a great… and great at what you do. And the last is something I learned from a guy named Tom Leopard back in 2012. Your priorities. As an entrepreneur, you have to have your priorities in order. It's got to be your faith, your family, and your fortune. If those three get out of whack at any point in time, it's time to step back, reevaluate, and bring them back in line and then things will start flowing so greatly. So always remember your faith, your family, and then you're fortune and as long as those three are aligned, you can always be successful and bounce back.  MARY: I love that. The three F's.  CHRIS: The three F's.  MARY: I love it. So you brought some… before we let you go, you brought some goodies for us. So, boy, I wish people…I wish we had smellivision because that cake smells so good. Oh my gosh. So Chris, what do we have here? This is one of the cakes that you do.  CHRIS: This is my spin on a…You lived in Kentucky?  MARY: I did not live in Kentucky.  CHRIS: I don't know why I thought you lived in Kentucky. So, this is my take on a Kentucky butter cake.  MARY: Okay.  CHRIS: So I call it a Carolina butter cake.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: It's a pound cake with some secret flavors.  MARY: Okay.  CHRIS: As all things as Mr. Sauce It Up does, we also do cake glazes.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: So this has a pineapple. No, I'm sorry…a peach mango rum glaze to it.  MARY: Yeah. Oh my goodness. This is going to be so good.  CHRIS: Mixed in butter. Something I came up with. I am the king of taking a recipe and turning it into my own. MARY: Right.  CHRIS: So, that's what I do the best. I don't… You know, if I go out to eat I'm probably going to take two… two combos, two meals and turn it into one.  MARY: And put them together.  CHRIS: So this is kind of what I've done with this and created my own flavor, but I feel pretty confident, I'm willing to bet you a $1 to your paycheck that you've never had a flavor like this.  MARY: All right, let's see it.  CHRIS: Let's see. Let me pull out my Dexter knife.  MARY: He's going to pull out his Dexter knife. Oh yeah, that's a Dexter knife. All right. All right. All right, let's cut into this sucker. So remind me again what the glaze is?  CHRIS: This is a peach mango with a hint of rum.  MARY: Okay.  CHRIS: And some other stuff that I can't really share with you at the time. I'll share with you at the time.  MARY: Right let's go. Cheers.  CHRIS: Cheers.  MARY: Oh my gosh.  CHRIS: Mmm. Mama where you at? Come on over here, get smacked.  MARY: That is so good. Did you say mama come on over here, get smacked?  CHRIS: Come on over. Come on over.  MARY: Oh yeah. So, we're going to have to change that phrase, well or add to it…the best damn sauce…the best damn glaze…because this is good stuff.  CHRIS: Thank you so much. Thank you so much.  MARY: Oh my goodness. Alright. So again, we'll have the links to how you get in touch with Chris wherever we're posting this podcast, both on YouTube and all of our podcast channels. Just look under the copy, the body copy. And you'll see that there because you… if you are having an event, you want to hire Chris to cater that event. Again, it's the entertainment and food. You can't beat that. CHRIS: Let me tell you.  MARY: Yeah.  CHRIS: I didn't mean to interrupt, but this cake is good.  MARY: It does taste good.  CHRIS: It tastes good. I'm a pound cake foodie and I think I've found something here.  MARY: I think you have too.  CHRIS: Not to brag, but yeah.  MARY: I think…I can't put it down. I got to finish eating so I can say the rest of the show so I can close the show out. Oh my gosh. So good. Alright. How do people get in touch with you if they want to get some sauce or they want you to cater an event?  CHRIS: Cater an event. You can find me on Facebook - Chris Sexton or Sexton's Smoke-N- Grill. Also on Instagram, it's Chris Sexton or Sexton's Smoke-N-Grill. Email me at sextonssmokengrill@gmail.com. www.sextonssmokengrill.com. And that's just Sexton's, Smoke, the letter “n”, grill.com. Or you can call me 864-680-4629. We got the sauces.  MARY: Alright, Chris, thank you so much.  CHRIS: Thank you. Anytime. Anytime.  MARY: So remember, if someone you know is an entrepreneur or has an idea, Greenville Starts is a great place for them to get started or if they're somewhere in the process along the way and they just need that little extra “umph” to learn things that they don't necessarily know, then that's a great place. So, in order to get into the next cohort, all you have to do is Google Greenville Starts and Furman and it should be the very first link that pops up and get yourself on that list.  The other thing I wanted to remind everybody of is that we have the Paladin Pitch competition, which if you are a Furman student, you can win $10,000 for your venture. That's coming up in April, but you have to participate in some pitch competitions before that. So, contact the Hill Institute, get your pitch to them and start working and then from all those pitches throughout the year, they'll choose the finalists to pitch in April. So be thinking about that, be brainstorming. If you want to do something, now is the time to do it. So, that does it for this episode of the Class E Podcast. I'm your host Mary Sturgilll. Remember this podcast is brought to you through a partnership between the Hill Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Communication Studies Department here at Furman University. It is produced by student producers, Kayla Patterson and Eliza Polich, a true example of the Furman Advantage. And remember, you can get this podcast two ways now - you can listen to it wherever you listen to your podcast, we also have a YouTube channel where you can watch it and you can see this beautiful cake that we just ate and see us eating it. And we also.. follow us on Tik Tok if you're on Tik Tok because we just started a brand new Tik Tok channel and you'll see a lot of the outtakes and a lot of cool stuff on behind the scenes stuff on that Tik Tok channel. Until next time everybody, dream big.    

Upcoming Event!How Can Mindfulness Help You Reach Financial Independence?Do you want to reduce money anxiety, but don't know who to trust?Would you like to learn how to set up and manage your own retirement plan?Do you want to know how we create a passive income stream you can't outlive?If yes, join us and learn how to answer the 4 critical financial independence questions:Am I on track for financial independence?What do I need to do to get on track?How do I design a mindful investing portfolio?How do I manage that portfolio and my income over time through changing markets?Learn more: https://courses.mindful.money/financial-independence-bootcampChris Mamula documented his personal path to financial independence at Eat the Financial Elephant for several years before leaving his career as a physical therapist in 2017 at age 41. Shortly after, he joined Darrow Kirkpatrick at Can I Retire Yet?, where he continues to follow his calling of helping people live their best lives. He's the co-author of the book, Choose FI, and his mission is to spread the life-changing message of financial independence to a broader audience. Today, Chris joins the show to talk about common misconceptions around the FIRE Movement, what it means to have a valuist mindset, and why it's imperative to prioritize saving money.

Want to help define the AI Engineer stack? Have opinions on the top tools, communities and builders? We're collaborating with friends at Amplify to launch the first State of AI Engineering survey! Please fill it out (and tell your friends)!If AI is so important, why is its software so bad?This was the motivating question for Chris Lattner as he reconnected with his product counterpart on Tensorflow, Tim Davis, and started working on a modular solution to the problem of sprawling, monolithic, fragmented platforms in AI development. They announced a $30m seed in 2022 and, following their successful double launch of Modular/Mojo

Listen in today's episode as entrepreneur extraordinaire Mark Walker shares Direct Digital Holdings journey. Mark reveals how laser-focusing on people, processes and credibility grew revenues from $6M to $120M in just five years. His insights on genuine networking and understanding capital raising are invaluable. We also explore leveraging AI for personalized ads and how concentrating on small wins propels growth. Mark's servant leadership style emphasizes collaboration in decision-making. Transitioning from private to public, Mark outlines assembling experienced boards through professional connections. Continuous learning, reading and informed networking develop strong leadership. This glimpse into Mark's exemplary journey offers a treasure trove of strategies for success. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Mark Walker, the co-founder and CEO of Direct Digital Holdings, emphasizes the importance of people, processes, and credibility in scaling a business from $6 million to $120 million in revenue within five years. He explains that adopting an "it's okay to fail" mindset and involving every team member in the hiring process can lead to a more efficient and collaborative team. The unique sales strategy of Direct Digital Holdings is shared, which involves dividing their sales groups into hunters and farmers, contributing to their remarkable growth. We discuss the significance of focusing on small wins and leveraging AI for personalized ads in accelerating business growth. He mentions that his leadership style is rooted in servant leadership, emphasizing collaboration in decision-making. Walker explains his strategy for assembling a board of directors to transition a company from private to public, highlighting the advantages of collaborating with law and accounting firms to recruit experienced board members. He stresses the importance of continuous learning, networking, and staying informed in maintaining effective leadership. Walker reveals his love for Gatlin's Barbecue and his dream of taking a 30-day sabbatical in Asheville, North Carolina. He explains that maintaining a genuine network of connections before needing something is a valuable tool for success. Walker also shares the importance of a company culture based on integrity, service to each other, and accountability. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller GUESTS Mark WalkerAbout Mark TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In this episode, you will meet Mark Walker, co-founder and CEO at Direct Digital Holdings. Mark shares his views on how the importance of focusing on people and processes will help accelerate and manage the growth of your company. Mark, I want to thank you for being here today and being a guest on our podcast. Mark: Yeah, thank you for having us. Chris: So let's just get started by you telling us, tell us, direct Digital Holdings. What is that company? What are you known for? Mark: Yeah, very simply, direct Digital Holdings. What we do is we help companies buy and sell media and we leverage technology to do it. We have a buy side platform where we actually work with roughly about 250 different clients all across the United States, focused on the middle market, and when we look at the middle market, there are companies that are five to 500 million in revenue and we help them purchase media in order to drive our way of performance for their company. The second half of our business is Colossus SP, which is a supply side platform, and that side of the business we help publishers such as USA Today, gannett, hearst, brands of that Nature actually sell media in an automatic or programmatic way throughout the digital ecosystem, and so we work with about 26,000 publications, helping them sell media online and that's everything from digital banner ads to CTV, ot, streaming audio ads and help them generate revenue for their publications and for their websites. Chris: That's great. So what was your inspiration to start this company and grow it to where it is today? Mark: Yeah, absolutely. My business partner and I. We actually worked on another publisher, ebony Media, and while we were at Ebony we saw how the value chain of the programmatic ecosystem and media buying was changing. We saw that publishers were having difficulty specifically multicultural publishers were having difficulty getting connected into the programmatic ecosystem because their websites were too small and typically the larger players in the marketplace would want to work with publications that had 10 million unique visitors Well, anyone less than that. They didn't think it was worth their time giving them the technical expertise, know how, wherewithal, to connect into the programmatic ecosystem and purchase media automatically. So we saw the opportunity to buy two nascent platforms. One was Huddle Masses, which was the initial buy side platform. The other one was Colossus, which was the sell side platform. We put them together underneath one brand direct digital holdings and we started off with roughly about $6 million in revenue, and this year we're projected to grow to about 120 million in top line revenue over the course of these five years, and we've been really blessed and honored that many clients and partners have decided to work with us over this time. Chris: Yeah, I get a meant remarkable growth. Let's talk about a little bit. So this is your first stint at being an entrepreneur. Mark: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah it's myself and my business partner, Keith Smith. It's our first time really stepping into the role of operator. Previously I worked at startups. That's really where I first got my digital expertise and worked at Deloitte, worked at NRG Energy here in town and then also at Ebony Media. So all the while I've been working in the digital space, but this is my first entree into entrepreneurial space, really around the digital platform. Chris: So what were some of the lessons that you've learned, starting basically your own company and taking on that leadership role where everything you know, the buck stops with you? Maybe explain to our listeners, maybe, some of the things that that you've learned along that journey. Mark: Yeah, you know, I would kind of frame it up into three different categories. Chris: One one. Mark: It was about building up credibility in the marketplace. Having a good name, having a good reputation, having a network that you could lean on, I can tell you has been categorically valuable. That network is what I've leaned on for board members, what I've leaned on for contacts, relationships all throughout my career and really it's been 20 years of building up relationships that has come to fruition through this organization. Chris: That's number one. Mark: The second was really building up the credibility as well as the connections, but really the credibility of learning a craft and an expertise. That's been the second thing. And staying inside of the digital space and having 20 years of experience, it just kind of gives you secondhand knowledge of how things are gonna operate and how digital operates and flows. And then the third piece is understanding how to raise capital and put capital into the ecosystem. My business partner he came from private equity, worked on Wall Street and so he had the expertise and really brought that to bear, and so really it's been the culmination of those three things that we made a good partnership in bringing all three of those together. That's actually allowed us to have the success that we've had today. Chris: Yeah, it makes sense. I mean you can't, I think, overemphasize the importance of building really good relationships throughout your career, because you never know what you're gonna need to lean on them. Mark: No, that's exactly right. Yeah, my buddy, he gave me a saying a long time ago. He said network before you need something, and so I kind of lived by that ethos and I thought it was actually a good way of thinking about relationships. And usually if you do something good or nice for someone, even though you don't know how it's gonna come back to you, nine times out of 10, it always comes back when you need it, and that's really has been the story of our career and also our experience working with direct digital holdings. Chris: Yeah, I like that Network before you need something which said in other ways be genuine, right, build relationships in a genuine way, and then, yeah, it's always nice to help people out, and then if you do that from a point of genuineness, then it gets returned. It always gets returned somehow. So let's talk a little about your growth. I mean 6 million to 120. What are some of the things you feel like you and your co-founding partner have done to help kind of manage that growth, Because sometimes rapid growth can destroy a company. Anything that you can kind of share with us, that you think you all have kind of put into place to kind of manage this growth so that it's a healthy growth and that the company is sustainable. Mark: Yeah, absolutely, you know. It was really, you know, going from 6 million to roughly we did. God took about 30 million through an acquisition and so that was a good push for us and then, from that 30 million, really the next trunch from 30 to 90, which is what we did last year we really started working on processes. I can't stress enough in my experience back at Deloitte as well as with NRG really emphasize the importance of process people. You can't grow without people and you can't grow in an organized fashion without processes. And so we internally have been focused for the last two years really building up the processes and bringing new people into the organization to work specific tasks you think about when we look at organizations inside of us, inside of our organization. Part of the training had incorporated is you look at the functional first. Remove all the bodies, just think about the functions that need to be executed, think about the KPIs and the accountability, and then you start assigning the right person for the right role within those functions and understanding that each leader can only manage roughly four or five people effectively. So, we've definitely have had an emphasis and a focus on people, processes and accountability in KPIs inside of our organization. And that's really has led us really to take it from 30 to 90 million. And then we're putting more processes in, more what we call our third and fourth layer of employees inside the organization for us to really take that growth from the 90 to the 120, hopefully from 120 and beyond. Chris: That's great. So totally agree process and people, especially people, are the most important right. You can't no chance of achieving that kind of growth without good people. So what are you doing? And I don't know, how's your employee head count grown when you were at the six and even maybe the 30 to now? How many people are we talking about? Mark: Yeah, so back when we were at six we had probably eight, nine people total. Today we're at 85. So definitely like 12x growth from where we started off. The good thing is we've hired a significant amount of people with experience, a wealth of experience inside of the industry. So that really cuts down on the learning curve. And then the next piece is giving people the distance and direction where we're trying to go, and give them the guide rails. We'll let them figure it out. The thing I try to say internally is if I had to tell you how to do your job, then one of us is not doing their job effectively. So my goal is to hire people who understand and aren't afraid to fail. Put them inside of a structure, give them the distance and the direction of the resources that they need to try to accomplish a task and hopefully, get out the way and try to remove boulders when necessary. That's been kind of our leadership philosophy inside the organization and we think we empower our employees to actually accomplish a task that we put in front of them and hopefully we can celebrate at the end of the year for them achieving it. Most of the times nine times out of ten they actually outperform. So we think if we set up the right structure, giving them the right resources to help, them and then giving them the proper distance and direction and get out of the way. usually that's an effective way If you hire the right people, for them to be effective in their jobs. Chris: I like that. So, going with the people theme, you got to get them in the right seat, give them direction. What are you doing there at Direct Digital to foster a culture and so that people want to stay? Let's talk a little bit about that. Mark: Yeah, the culture that we really try to foster is one based on integrity. So if you're going to say something, follow up and do it. If you don't do it, take account of it before it. That's number one we try to foster that. We also foster service to each other, and that's the biggest one. My job as a leader is really to be of service to the employees, so take it serious to try to provide service to them and getting them what they need in order for them to execute effectively, and so we try to instill that inside of our leadership team and view it as it's not you doing what I say. It's about you enrolling in what we're trying to accomplish, and then let me help you get there. And so, even though we give big goals to our employees, we feel like it's all of our jobs to own that goal. And so I'm right there making phone calls. I still go on sale pitches. Last night, I had a client dinner we're still out here boots on the ground and if I'm not the number one salesperson trying to help generate sales and leads for the team, then I feel like I'm not doing my job. So that's kind of how we think about it. And when we try to hire employees, the word we termed as we want strategic doers. I like that. Yeah, we don't. We, you know, we're very deliberate that, especially in the growth phase that we're in, I need a strategic doer, someone who can be strategic but someone who doesn't mind rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty and running a report or making a sales call or generating leads. We need everybody doing it and then if you do effective job, then hire more resources underneath it. You can start moving into the strategic role. Yeah, Every employee starts off that way. We think it's a bit of an effective way for us to grow. Chris: Kind of that mindset of do what it takes to get the job done. Yep, well, it sounds like you know a lot of collaboration to kind of a team, teamwork, team, teammate mentality. Yeah, but you talked about you know just your hiring process, anything that you guys were doing there. Do you think they're somewhat innovative in how you go about the hiring process to make sure you're getting the right people? And maybe any challenges you faced in the last few years, given the environment and the economy? Mark: Yeah, when we come to the hiring, what we adopt as our philosophy is everybody touches them. So if the team is going to interview, if the person is going to be working on team, everybody on team has a say. Everybody on team has veto authority. And then the one thing I try to remind the leaders is the problem is going to be the problem. So if one person identifies a weakness, another person identifies a weakness, then that's probably the weakness in that person and it's not going to change. So then you have to ask yourself the tougher question Is that weakness detrimental in this role, or is that something that can be covered up or managed? And so that philosophy has been very instrumental in us being effective and we've been very. When we have our debriefs after we interview someone, everyone comes together. One person feels like I don't think they're going to be a good fit or I don't feel comfortable working with them. Then that's a no across the board. So very rarely have we made a decision that the collective wasn't comfortable with that person coming into the organization. Maybe it's my old fraternal approach to things, pledging a fraternity, and my business partner he actually played football at UT, but feel like a team and a collaborative approach is always the best way to try to find the best candidates and make sure you can protect the culture of the organization. Chris: Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more. I think that you've got that cohesiveness. You just can't put a price on it. And one person you hear it a lot in sports right, but a bad apple in the locker room or can destroy a good team, or quite the opposite. Maybe not a group of the best stars, but they get along. They can play above their natural ability. Mark: Yeah, absolutely. Chris: And. Mark: I love that yeah. Chris: So let's talk about a setback that maybe you've encountered in the last since starting at the company. Explain, maybe a setback you've encountered, what you did to overcome that, maybe what the learning was and how it's made you or the company better. Yeah, absolutely. Mark: You know, in moving and growing this fast, sometimes you miss processes and you know the way that we view it. One person didn't miss a process. We all missed the process. So for us you know, we've done that before where you know you have might be a process set up to protect the organization and you missed it. Sometimes you got to go in and everybody has to rally around and say, okay, guys, let's figure out what happened. There's no fault to be assigned, but really what it is. Let's figure out where did the process break down and we're all collectively accountable. So, that's really the approach we've taken, what I think it actually helped us. It actually helped us Really identify are there any other holes that we have in the organization we need to plug up? You know, you know what you know, but you don't know what you don't need. You don't always know what you don't know Right, and so it's that piece that, unfortunately, usually errors get pointed out and that's the correction that you have to go in place. But we try to take an attitude of it's no one's fault, it's all of our problem, let's all own it, let's take accountability for it, let's fix it. Chris: I'd have to believe that helps foster that it's okay to fail type of mentality you talked about earlier. Right, that if everyone's kind of you feel like everyone, that's your coworkers are in it with you, then you're more likely to take that risk, knowing that failure is not going to point fingers at you as a result. Mark: Absolutely, and that usually usually helps, because if everyone's in there with you together, then you're okay. You know you got coverage. Chris: Yeah. Mark: So that's the best benefit that you have. Chris: Switching subjects a little bit, let's just when you think about what you guys are doing and both sides of your business, anything kind of innovative that you all employed, that you think has really helped the trajectory of the company and this growth you've seen. Mark: Yeah, I would say a couple things. One, we bifurcated our sales groups, so we have lead generation and then we have our sales closers. That has been instrumental. Let the hunters be the hunters, let the farmers be the farmers and let them both work collectively together. That has been instrumental to help us grow. Specifically on our buy side business, we've been growing solid 10-20% year over year. That's a tougher business to grow but the level of growth that we've been able to see has been very effective for us. Very proud of what we've been able to accomplish on that piece On the sell side of our business, which has been growing 100-200% year over year we've been able to really foster an environment where a lot of companies will go in and try to get the big whale. We play a lot of small ball inside of the game, so a lot of fruit what I call was low hanging fruit had gotten left by our competitors. We called, we made calls, not to the highest level person, to the lowest level person, told them to test out our platform and, sure enough, we were able to grow that business that way. Our business leader was very innovative on that approach, calling what we call fingers on keyboards those are the decision makers, the day-to-day decision makers to get them to try out our platform and through those efforts we were able to grow effectively. So sometimes, especially when talking to other entrepreneurs, sometimes look for the slow hanging fruit. Don't try to hit the home run, try to hit the single. The single will get you on base and that gets you actually in the game. That's kind of the strategy we've taken. Chris: I think that's great advice for some of our listeners out there that maybe trying to grow their company they just started is. You know, you don't always have to hit the home run of the Grand Slam right, you can start small and let that momentum build. What about AI? How do you see AI playing into your business model and what changes do you think are going to be coming down your path where you may need to make some adjustments? Mark: Yeah, no good question. When it comes to AI, I think what you're going to start saying is it's definitely been around for some time, or some level of machine learning has been around for some time. We think of it in two different counts. We think of behind the house and then in front of the house. Behind the house, that's the stuff that you really don't see, but that's really inside of the processes. That's stuff that we're taking advantage of right now. We're taking advantage of a lot of different algorithms. We're incorporating AI into different pieces of it. You won't be able to see it, touch it, feel it, but it's actually making our systems run much more, our technology run much more efficiently. On the back end, that, I think, has been around for a while and we're definitely in that space and moving more advantageously in that space. Behind the house. In front of the house is where I think all the excitement is actually coming with AI. The fact that you can do words with image imagery, natural language, learning, things of that nature I think we're going to start seeing in the next two years is a personalization of ads. Right now, you do a lot of ads. You might come up with 16, 17, 20 different recipes, trying to hit different segments. I think you're going to see a lot more personalization. On the data side, we have a significant amount of personalization of understanding what people like, what they dislike, their behavioral, demographic, psychographics all that information is already there. Now you're going to start seeing the creative reflect that, because creating new recipes of ads is going to be a lot easier leveraging AI technology than when you don't have AI technology. You have a human who has to replicate 20 different ads of the same idea. I think that's really the next evolution that you're going to see. I think that's going to be the exciting part coming to our space in probably the next two years. Chris: Wow, that'll be before you know it. Mark: Yeah, it'll probably be here sooner than later. Chris: Yeah, let's talk a little bit about leadership. How would you describe your leadership style? Mark: I think it's more of a. As I said before, I try to serve all of my team members. On the personal, we all think of more of it as a collaborative approach. We think of each other as a work family. We try to foster that type of environment of a work family. If you go to our office space, there are offices, but the main area, about 3,000 square feet, looks like a house. It looks like a kitchen, has a TV, has couches. We try to foster a work family environment. We want kids up there. We ask employees bring your kids. We have X-pots for them to play. It needs to be a collaborative approach because we spend probably more time at work than we do at home. Chris: Yeah, no question, right, so you might as well enjoy it while you're there. Mark: The other way that I would say is my leadership style is I try to really believe in trying to be a servant leader, so every problem is my problem. If my team has a problem, it's my problem. I try to own it. I try to help people solve through it and work with them and try to hold them accountable for the result. But no one's held accountable on their own. We're all accountable, so everyone pitches in to try to help out. So that's what we try to do with the environment, that we try to foster Type of leadership style that we have. My team probably would say I get into the weeds a little too much. Sometimes you can't help it right. Chris: Yeah, but I enjoy getting started. I get that. I get that there's some value, as long as you can regulate it to your team, seeing you willing to get in and get dirty get your fingernails dirty from time to time, right, and they're like, okay, you are in this with us, yeah, let's talk about. So. You've got your co-founder, keith Smith. How do the two of you manage the leadership roles in the company to be aligned and kind of maybe not contradict one another or step on each other's toes? Mark: Yeah, so the way we operate Function is we both bring two different experiences and we actually did bring two different personalities to the equation my business partner, keith. He's definitely more on the finance side. So when it comes to the finance, when it comes to the administrator, when it comes to the legal, he owns that, that's, he takes the leadership piece on that and I'm more than happy to step out of the way. All those pieces we got to do refies. We're going through the IPO process. He definitely took the lead on how to get that whole structure and organizing. Yeah, that expertise and experience for that. Chris: When it comes to the operational side. Mark: that's the piece that I bring more of my leadership style to, and so we meet in the middle. So when those two come together we meet in the middle. So it's really kind of clear lines in how we are structured. When it comes to investors, he takes the lead on talking to investors and stuff like that. If they need to hear from the operator, then I step in and have those kind of conversations. Chris: But that's pretty much how we structure the organization and it works well that way, so clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, and then everyone in the organization understands that as well, how it shapes up. Mark: Yeah, and then personality wise we make a good match, because I'm probably more of the passionate one, he's probably more of the sub dude one, so we meet in the middle that way. Chris: Okay, yeah, that sounds like a great team. The results speak for itself. What about mentors? Any mentors you've had along the way? That kind of help get you to where you are, shape your leadership philosophies, your work ethic, etc. Mark: Oh, absolutely, I had a thousand. You know a lot of them Some of them have been independent entrepreneurs. I call them my own personal board of directors. Reach out to a lot of them one-on-one to have conversations with them and get feedback and thought. Some of my mentors and leaders actually have joined the board, okay, and they're on our board of directors, and so definitely get a lot of leadership and good guidance from our board of directors, very happy with what they provide and the expertise that they deliver. And then they definitely help shape the organization and also give me and challenge me to think through different either opportunities or also different risks that are out there. So definitely got the board, got my independent individual board of directors as well. Of friends that I actually call on that I've known for 20 plus years. Some are in the industry, some are outside the industry, but they haven't been shaped by all of them. Chris: Let's talk a little bit about that. You know the board and board composition, etc. When did you and Keith decide to form a board of directors? Was it right out of the start or was it as the company was evolving and growing? Mark: Yeah, so we started our when we were from 2018 to 2022, we were actually privately held, so we're probably I'll do as myself, keith and we had a third business partner who we ended up buying out, so we made up the constitute the board and, trust me, it was 100 times easier as a private company yeah. Because you look at Keith and I look at him and say what do you want to do? Chris: Yeah, Right, which is typically how the small, privately held entrepreneur starts out. Right Exactly. Mark: Yeah, and just kind of kind of keeping moving. When we ended up deciding to go public, we had to actually form a public board, and so then we had to start recruiting people with actually board experience and expertise and you know some level of ground toss and all that. And that's when you know, we had to start tapping into our own connections, our own network. Our lead director we worked at Deloitte. We both worked at Deloitte, didn't know each other at that time but we knew mutual people and mutual friends and so we recruited her to come on the board as our lead director. She's been absolutely phenomenal. But really thought through, what did we need to help us grow to the next level? So we knew we needed technologists. We knew we needed someone with finance background and a strong experience and accounting around audit committee. Then we knew we needed someone with industry expertise, specifically from the agency side. So we're very strategic about who we brought on the board, why we brought them on the board and what value we were really looking to get in expertise. So you know, my advice on performing a board is really to think through. Don't think about where you are today, but really think about where you're trying to go tomorrow and try to bring the people who have that experience and expertise to come on the board. Now I will say for us to recruit one of those members, best place to go is your law firm and your accounting firm. They know good people. They know people they probably worked with on other boards. My first piece of advice go to your attorneys and go to your accountants and see if they know of anyone who might be a good board member. That's how we started our recommendation process, yeah. Chris: And I think you're right in picking those disciplines that you have again as a mentor or resource to bounce ideas off of, get direction from. Yeah, and you don't have to be a public company, a privately held company trying to grow can that entrepreneur can benefit from those resources. Mark: Absolutely Firmly believe that and then build the right culture even inside the board. You want to collaborate on board who can think through problems collectively and come to a solution. Chris: Yeah, what about? You know we all, we all try to continue to learn and grow. What are some of the things you do to kind of keep yourself sharp, to keep learning, to be that servant leader? You know the type of person that you want to emulate in the company. Mark: Yeah, a couple things. One definitely mentorship. So you know, one of the pieces of advice I give is get into a CEO group, because everybody has problems. Chris: Right, then you can learn from other people's problems before they become yours. Mark: Before they become yours. You're like, let me take note of that problem. That's number one. But I would also say you know I read a lot. Yeah, every morning I'm reading, every afternoon I'm reading, I subscribe to God knows how many publications. So you really try to absorb information and I have to say you have to get out of the ivory tower and get out on the street. Yeah, I'm a firm believer in, you know, hearing kind of the qualitative information. To me, if it's in the news, it's already too late. It's really the qualitative information that you get from networks that really kind of give you insight on where the trends are going. So I always try to keep my ear to the street. By getting out and meeting with people and taking people to watch, I get a lot of good information that way. Chris: These are great pieces of advice as far as how to kind of stay in tune with things, and I think you're right. These days there's some great publications, you know I think Bloomberg does since two meals a day, one in the morning, one in the evening, and all that where news is coming at you fast. Mark: It's coming at you and you gotta be on it every day, For sure You're absolutely right. Chris: Before we change subjects, one or two things that you would say to some of our listeners that are trying to start, or maybe just start, a new company about here. If you're about to embark on this journey to pursue a passion on your own or with a couple partners, here are one or two things that I think you should absolutely do or consider doing, as you kind of embark on that wisdom there. Mark: You know, the one piece of advice I would give is be all in Like entrepreneurship. I will just say two things. One, it's not for the faint of heart, but you gotta be all in. And so I think there is something about failure and success. The risk of failure will drive you to success. But if you kinda have one foot in and I'm still doing my job, but I wanna do this then you're not wanting to be an entrepreneur. You either gotta be all in, ready to risk it all, or you don't. That's probably the one piece of advice I would give Pretty much everyone. And if you're not in the position to get yourself in the position to and then go all in, Don't think you can do it half in, half out. It won't work. Chris: That's great, great advice actually, and very true. It's funny that's a pretty consistent theme of the guest I've had. Is that all in mentality? And the second is it's not for the faint of heart. Mark: Right. Chris: So just know there's gonna be tough times and you just gotta muscle through it. So let's go a little bit on the personal side. What was your first job? Mark: First job in high school was a sacker at Randalls. I used to sack groceries when I turned 16, over off of Jones Road and, yeah, you made good money. If I came home with $40 after a cycle, I was pretty happy. Chris: Yeah, and in the hot Texas heat. Oh absolutely, yeah, okay, so your native Texan. I always ask all my guests you prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue? Mark: Barbecue hands down Gavils barbecue. Chris: Oh, okay, there we go, no hesitation, and applaud for Gatlins. I love it. It's pretty good stuff. They've gotten a lot more competition now, but Gavils gonna win, yeah. So let me ask you this so if you could take a 30 day sabbatical not that you would, if you could where would you go? What would you do? Mark: If I could take a 30 day sabbatical I would probably. You know, I really wouldn't mind going to Asheville, north Carolina, getting out in the mountains and enjoy some of that, especially in the fall I'd be out there all day Just out in the woods and hanging out. Chris: It's a beautiful area. Oh God, it's gorgeous. Yeah, it's got a sketch right out there. Well, mark, I wanna thank you again for coming on. Congratulations to you and Keith on what you've built and are continuing to build. Love hearing your story and the insights you shared. Mark: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. Pleasure being here. I appreciate your time and thank you for having us. Special Guest: Mark Walker.

In the seventh episode of Season 11 of the Propcast, host Louisa Dickins is joined by Chris Oldham Senior Policy and Programme Manager at City of London Corporation and Hannah Vickers, Chief of Staff at Mace   Episode Highlights: •  What the ‘Skills for Sustainable Skyline Taskforce' is and the work they are doing •  Why it is unusual to have a Chief of Staff role in the construction industry •  The trends that Hannah has seen within the sector over the last few years •  The workforce engagement campaign that Chris is helping to run to ensure they have the right people in key roles •  Why we need a more joined up approach to engage schools when looking to bring the     future workforce in •  The misconceptions on what a career in the build environment is like •  Creating a clearer path both into the industry and being able to retrain within the industry •  The importance of addressing the skills gap •  The current innovation trends within the sector   Resources: •  LMRE Global Recruitment and Search Consultancy •  LMRE YouTube Interviews •  PropTech Salary Report, LMRE 2022 •  Skills for Sustainable Skyline Taskforce •  Construction Leadership Council •  Women in Construction Tech •  BIM Academy Shout outs: •  Antonia Soler •  Bola Abisogun   Key Takeaways:  •  I began my career as a primary school teacher, which gave me a real interest in how we     can best equip our young people for the careers of tomorrow. - Chris  •  We're encouraging the existing workforce for the full project lifecycle of sustainable     buildings to upskill, to reskill with those green skills that we've identified in the research,     and also to attract a large cohort of diverse new entrants from untapped pools of talent,     particularly looking at women, more young people, people from ethnic minority     backgrounds into the build environment. - Chris  •  One of the first trends that I came across was how much our productivity improved during     covid. - Hannah  •  We are the second highest paying sector in the UK. So if you think about people having     lifelong careers and retraining, you could potentially retrain and come into construction,     but still be as well paid or better paid than you might be in another sector. - Hannah  •  I think how we tap into those pools of talent, we need to look at developing a more     flexible approach to work as well, which in practice is probably offering hybrid work. -     Chris  •  We're going to need people who can work to those requirements, who can understand     what that means for the construction process. So if you like it's not a hard sell. It's a sort      of requirement to be able to function as a business going forward. So that's why for us, it's     so important. - Hannah   About Our Host Louisa Dickins Louisa is the co-founder of LMRE, which has rapidly become the market leading global PropTech recruitment platform and search consultancy with operations across North America, United Kingdom, Europe and Asia-Pacific. To promote the industry she is so passionate about, Louisa set up the Global podcast ‘The Propcast' where she hosts and invites guests from the built environment space to join her in conversation about innovation. About LMRE LMRE is globally recognised for leading the way in Real Estate Tech & Innovation talent management. From the outset our vision was to become a global provider of the very best strategic talent to the most innovative organisations in PropTech, ConTech, Smart Buildings, ESG, Sustainability and Strategic Consulting. At LMRE we are fully committed at all times to exceed the expectations of our candidates and clients by providing the very best advice and by unlocking exclusive opportunities across our global network in the UK, Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific.   Sponsors Launch Your Own Podcast A Podcast Company is the leading podcast production and strategic content company for brands, organisations, institutions, individuals, and entrepreneurs. Our team sets you up with the right strategy, equipment, training, guidance and content to ensure you sound amazing while speaking to your niche audience and networking with your perfect clients. Get in touch hello@apodcastcompany.com  

This episode's guest is Chris Rainsforth, an award-winning Customer Contact Specialist who has been in the Industry for over 15 years working in both in-house and outsourced contact centres, holding roles in Operations, Training and Support Functions across Front & Back Offices. Chris has experience in developing multi-site, multi-culture and multi-channel change programmes, working across global regions to deliver successful initiatives including enablement, quality assurance, speech analytics and Training and has a demonstrated history in Program Leadership across many functions in a range of industries. His experience is shared as a thought leader and Keynote speaker who has experience delivering small training and discussion workshops up to large-scale conferences and events. Lee and Chris discuss his journey from homelessness to successful change leader, working for The Forum, a professional training and coaching company, bringing his wealth of knowledge and experience to use in helping clients develop innovative and robust approaches to customer service. KEY TAKEAWAYS At 15 Chris became homeless from detrimental choices and being an ‘idiot', but luckily met people who put him on the road to his current success. Chris' experiences have led him towards a career advising and guiding other people. Contact Centres are great places to launch a business career as it teaches you so much, be it Customer Service, HR, Management or Training. To circumvent mistakes of the past, Chris' family have a very open environment so discussions can be easily held. It takes a degree of confidence to issue Keynote speeches, lead Change Groups and run open conferences and events. It is much easier to be yourself in these environments as having to keep up an appearance is exhausting. Be authentic. BEST MOMENTS ‘We help organisations that run any type of customer operation, whether it's a contact centre or a back office or retail business, help them understand their requirements and give them learning development and support to make themselves and their people better.' – Chris ‘One of the key things for me was finding that you don't need to do everything alone. That's the place I was in, that I had to do everything alone. It taught me that I don't need to be expert at everything, I don't need to know everything, but I do need to know that there are people out there that can help.' – Chris ‘What three words do you think your daughter would use to describe you?' – lee ‘I honestly think she would say that I am caring, generous, and I would imagine she would say I'm a role model.' – Chris ‘People will like me or they won't, and that's fine, I'm happy with that. I am who I am and I'm not going try and change who I am anymore. I've tried that and it's exhausting.' – Chris VALUABLE RESOURCES Business Problems Solved Podcast          ABOUT THE HOST For the last 15 years, I have been a multi-sector internal or external business improvement consultant, building the improved capability of individuals, teams and businesses. In my spare time, I enjoy spending time with my two young children Jack & India. I also enjoy listening to and reading business & personal development material. Lee Houghton is “THE Business Problem Solver”, a Management Consultant, CX Specialist and Keynote Speaker.   CONTACT METHOD You can contact Lee Houghton on 07813342194 Lee@leehoughton.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/lhoughton/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris One take with the beat and rhyme, through and through. The New Wave of Music is here. Would you care to ride the wave? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/letsgetspiritual/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/letsgetspiritual/support

On this episode, Chris talks about testing external services and dissects a tweet on refinements for Result. Steph talks about thoughbot's recent improvement to their feature flag system. Links: refinements For Result (https://twitter.com/alassek/status/1430683412264857600) Faking External Services in Tests with Adapters by German Velasco (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/faking-external-services-in-tests-with-adapters) Testing Interaction with 3rd-party APIs (https://thoughtbot.com/upcase/videos/testing-interaction-with-3rd-party-apis) Transcript: CHRIS: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Chris Toomey. STEPH: And I'm Steph Viccari. CHRIS: And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. So, Steph, what's new with you? STEPH: Hey, Chris. Well, today is Summit Day at thoughtbot, and it's the day where all the bots gather, and we hang out, and we chat, and we play games. And it's a lot of fun. We're actually taking more of a respite this year just because life has been taxing. And so we decided to give people more of the day off. So we still had some fun events, but most of it is everybody gets a chill day. Do something that brings you joy is the theme of the day. But we had Lightning Talks, which is my favorite thing that we do on Summit Day because I realize that I just work with the coolest people, and they have such interesting things to talk about. And we had such a variety of topics. So one of them, Alex Chen taught us acronyms in K-pop. And Sam Kapila, our resident foodie, taught us about a variety of spices. And one of my favorite talks was by Akshith Yellapragada, and it's the top 10 best limo entrances by The Bachelor, and it was phenomenal. And I really want to share some stuff that I learned with you. CHRIS: The Bachelor like the TV show? STEPH: Yeah, like the TV show. Are you familiar with it? Have you seen it before? CHRIS: I am familiar with it. I know it exists. I know that there's a spinoff, The Bachelorette. And I believe we have now exhausted my information on the matter. STEPH: [laughs] That's fair. For anyone that hasn't seen the show, the show revolves around a single person. For the bachelor, it's a single bachelor who dates a number of people over several weeks, and then they narrow down the people. There are elimination rounds, and the whole goal is for them to find their true love. So each week, someone is eliminated, and I think the show ends with a marriage proposal. So it's a wild show. It's something. [chuckles] And in Akshith's talk, I learned some really fun terminology. The first one is the Crown, and this is actually an important building block because we're going to get to the rest of the terminology that uses this word, so we got to start here. So the first one is the Crown, and this is the person that everyone's competing for. So they're the star of the show. They're the one that everybody is hoping to fall in love with or will fall in love with them so they get a marriage proposal. So then the other stuff that I've learned is all about the entrance because again, we're talking about the top 10 best entrances. And one of them is the sidecar entrance. So this is where the player, because yes, this is totally a game, has someone assist them in meeting the crown. So it could be like a family member, maybe it's like your grandma. And then there's TOT, T-O-T, which is short for Trick Or Treat. And this person exits the limo wearing a costume. So it's someone wearing a shark costume. There was someone wearing a sloth costume where they really dedicated to the role, and they climbed a tree and hung from a branch. I don't know for how long but for long enough to really vibe with the role. And then there's the Kringle, and this person brings a prop or a present to the Crown. And there's the Grandy, and this player arrives in something other than a limo. So the example that Akshith provided is someone arrived in a motorized cupcake. CHRIS: Was the cupcake edible? STEPH: I don't think so, fair question. [laughs] CHRIS: So really just like a go-kart that looked like a cupcake, not really a motorized cupcake, if I'm going to meet pedantic about the thing, [chuckles] which I think is my job. STEPH: Yes, it is a motorized non-edible cupcake, but that seems like something a next player should do. They should really up the game, and they should bring an edible motorized cupcake. CHRIS: Yeah, because you get the visual novelty, but then you layer on top of it that it's actually something that you can now eat, and it's a double win. STEPH: Ooh, and then you're a Grandy, and you're a Kringle because you arrived in something other than a limo, and it's a present. CHRIS: I love how you have so deeply internalized this now that you're like, ooh, okay. I can remix here. I'm going to bring together the pieces. Yeah, all right. Yeah, this all makes sense. STEPH: Yeah, it was a lot of fun. Those are most of my notes for today. I have some tech stuff too, but this felt like the most important thing to start the show with. CHRIS: We use the phrase tech talk and nonsense to describe the show often, but I think nonsense and tech talk is the correct orientation. STEPH: [chuckles] CHRIS: Correct in terms of importance and chronological order, and whatnot. But yeah. STEPH: I love that we start with a bit of nonsense. So I do have some tech stuff. But first, before I share any of that, what's going on in your world? CHRIS: I'm sure there's plenty of nonsense in my world, but at the top of my list is some tech stuff. So someone on Twitter, Adam Lassek, reached out and he suggested related to the conversation and the back and forth that I've been having with myself around some of the data structures within the app that I'm building…So I've talked about the dry-monads result object, and there's this success and failure. And I wanted to introduce this new method called bimap, but I wanted to do it in a reasonable way. So I wrapped, and then I wrapped, and I wrapped things. As an aside, former colleague and friend of the show, Joel Oliveira, sent a wonderful tweet which was a reference to the SNL video where they make a taco and put it inside of a pizza and put it inside of a bag. And that was his joke about it, which I really liked. That was an excellent reference. But in this case, Adam Lassek reached out and suggested if I'm that squeamish about monkey patching, which I am, have I considered refinements? And so he sent an image of a code sample, which is so kind of him to send that much detail over, but it was interesting because I know of refinements in Ruby. I know of that as an alternative to monkey patching, a more refined way, but a safer way, a more controlled way to alter code, but I've not actually used them. STEPH: I'm not familiar with refinements. What is that? CHRIS: Refinements are a way...so similar to monkey patching, where you say like, I'm going to reopen this class or this module and define a new method or redefine a method or do something like that, a refinement is a way to do that in a scoped manner. So I'll be honest, I'm not super familiar with them. I think I came into Ruby at a time where the community was moving away from monkey patching. And the dogmatic swing of the pendulum was like, that's a bad thing to do. And so even the refinements were introduced, as far as I understand it, to be a more controlled way to do it. So it's not just like, hey, cool. This module is redefined now in your app in a magical way that's really hard to figure out and hard for folks to debug refinements. You have to explicitly opt into within a certain lexical scope. I'll be honest; I know that at the headline level. I don't actually know the ramifications or where and when you can use them and how you can. But I know that that was the idea is refinements are a way to do monkey patching but in a more controlled, more understandable manner, and so the code sample that Adam shared does that. And it's very interesting. As I'm looking at it, I'm like, okay, that's cool because I think it'll be a little bit safer. But at the end of the day, my concern wasn't safety in this case because I was introducing a method that would be new, that would be additive to the API of this module that I'm working with, and so that I think of as a relatively safe operation. My hesitation was more around how does someone figure it out if they're working with this? And particularly, the name of the method that I was introducing was bimap so, B-I-M-A-P. And if someone sees that in our codebase and is like, "Bimap, where is this coming from?" Well, this is one of those dry-monad result objects. And they go to the code, and they try and look it up in the docs, and they're just not going to find anything. And I can imagine losing a lot of time to try and chase that down. There are ways to figure it out. There's the method in Ruby, which is a wonderful trick for chasing things down. Or if you grep the codebase, you'd find it. But I think I'm possibly over-indexed on worrying about that lost time, that moment. But I've lost that time so many times in my life where I'm like, I can't grep for this. I can't Google for this. And so I have so strongly moved in the direction of being like, everything should be grepable, everything should be googleable. Those are the two of the things that I believe about software. I think I believe a bunch of stuff. STEPH: I think we have a full episode that talks about what we believe in software. CHRIS: I believe we do. STEPH: Cool. Thanks. Yeah, I have not heard of refinements. That sounds really interesting. I really like that bit about everything should be grepable, and everything should be googleable, googling everything. I kind of agree with that one. We live in a world where we're always doing bespoke things so that one feels a little bit harder that we're always going to be able to Google it. But then that encourages people to constantly publish the bespoke work that they're doing so then others can benefit from that work. But the grepable, I absolutely agree with that one. It's so frustrating where I see a method, but I cannot find its definition. And then having the ways to figure out where that method is defined to then find its definition is crucial. CHRIS: Yeah, it's interesting. I definitely feel that way very strongly. And it's in such stark contrast to Rails. Rails is like, hey, don't worry. There's going to be a lot of methods. You don't need to worry about where they come from, or why they exist, or what they are, or what they do. Well, probably what they do. But all of the magic inflections on database tables,, and suddenly you have methods named after every column. That's both very magical and hard to grep for or impossible to grep for, but it also leaks the entire structure of your database into your application in a way that I've always felt a little bit complicated about. And so explicitness, grepability, those are things that I care about. There's another one, delegates in Rails, that I sometimes pause around using especially when it's like delegates 19 methods to user prefix user. And so you end up with methods that are like username. And that's a delegation to the user object to get the name method off of it, but it creates the method user_name. And you're never going to be able to grep for that. And it saves like a little bit of code, definitely, but it saves this very obvious, very knowable code. So this one I actually shy away from using delegates in most cases, and I'll just write out the methods manually because sometimes I like to hear the clackety of my keyboard. There's a reason I have a clackety keyboard. STEPH: You want to get your money's worth. You want to clackety as much as possible. Yeah, I'm also not a fan of delegates. This may be a lie, but I don't know that I've actually ever used it. I've worked with it, but I can't think of a time that I've implemented delegates. Maybe that's a lie, but I'm going to say it anyways because that feels true, at least in the last couple of years. CHRIS: I feel like that could be true for the last couple of years. I would be surprised if you have never even added to a delegates line. Because that's the thing, you can just keep shoveling stuff into them as well. So I would put money on you having used it at some point and then just forgotten about it. But who knows, maybe not. STEPH: This is where we play two truths and a lie and that one's my lie. [laughs] Yeah, that's also fair about adding to it because if that's already defined and it's easier to add to it, I don't know. Who knows what past Stephanie has done, probably some wild stuff. CHRIS: It's unknowable at this point. It's lost to the sands of time. But looping back to the core thing of this refinement and the module, I think I'm leaning in the direction of doing that and unwinding my wrapping and wrapping layer thing. Because obviously, as I talked about...I think it was the previous episode or maybe two episodes ago. There was conceptual complexity to the additional wrapping layer. Even as I was fully in the context of working on that, I was still getting myself confused in either triple wrapping or then unwrapping too much or whatever. And these are the concerns with this type of code. So moving away from that feels better, having just a single layer of context wrapping around a given value. And then the other thing it's actually just a lot less code, and it's less prone to error, I think. That's my hope. I have to look into exactly how refinements get used, but I noticed in a couple of places that sometimes we were wrapping with this local value object that gave us the bimap method, and sometimes we were forgetting to. And so, I could see that being a very subtle, easy way to introduce failures into the app that would be hard to catch just by looking at it. So I think having a more global refinement...although I think that's sort of a contradiction, a global refinement because I think refinements are meant to be local. But anyway, I'm going to look into it because it's a much more concise code sample than what I have. Yeah, I'm going to poke at that a little bit. But it was an interesting exploration of some different things. And then it forced me to consider why am I so resistant to monkey patching at this point, especially in this particular case where I think it's okay-ish? STEPH: That's a good question. Do you have any insights? I am also resistant to monkey patching. I feel that pain and also that timidness of diving into that space. But I'm curious, have you figured out any other reasons that you really prefer to avoid it? CHRIS: I think this one falls into that sort of...what's the word? Like tribal knowledge of we've been burned by it in the past and therefore we build almost a...religious is too strong of a word but that sort of cultural belief. This is a thing that we do not do because of the bad things that we've experienced in the past. And there are a lot of things that fall into that experiential negative space. So with monkey patching, things that I know we can run into is if I introduced this bimap method, but I introduce it subtly differently than the library will eventually, then they could eventually introduce it themselves. And suddenly, I have this fork of my code expects it to work this way, but you've now implemented it that way. I no longer can upgrade. This is a critical piece of infrastructure in my app. I've just painted myself into a corner by doing this. Whereas if I do this wrapping layer, that's my code. I own that. It's not going to be a problem in that same way. There's also the subtlety, the grepability that sort of thing is a concern in my mind. Like, is this our code? Is this their code? Is this an engine? Being able to find code within a codebase, I think, is a critical thing. And so that's a part of the hesitation. I also know longer ago prototypes...I want to say Prototype JS was the name of the project, but it was one that was just like, yeah, JavaScript doesn't have enough stuff in the standard library. So we're just going to override everything and add all of these wonderful methods sort of in the way that Active Support does, which is an interesting comparison. But the JavaScript community definitely moved away from Prototype. And now JavaScript is a language or the standard runtime that's available in most JavaScript engines. It has a lot of the methods, but there are conflicts, and stuff gets weird, and it's all complicated. But again, as I thought of it, Active Support is a complete contradiction to everything I'm saying. Active Support just adds whatever to anything, 2.days.ago. Why does the number 2 have a days method? Because it's great, that's why. But I'm just a walking contradiction, I guess. STEPH: Everything you said really resonates with me. And I'm just trying to reason with myself like yes, Active Support uses a lot of this, a lot of metaprogramming, and adds everything it wants to. So why does that feel okay? And I wonder if it comes down to one is more almost like an agreed standard. It's built by a team, and it's maintained by a team, and then it's used by a large number of people, and then you get that feedback. Or maybe it's not even just a team, but it's a larger community versus if it's internal to your software team, maybe that doesn't feel like a big enough group or if it just needs...Rails is also documented. So maybe that's part of it, too, is if you are going to dive into that space, it's easy to discover, and it's well-documented as if you are building an open-source project that other people are going to use. Like, you designed for the intent of people to use this pattern that you've introduced, then perhaps that's when it starts to feel okay. , But the experiences I have had is where people basically will add some dynamic programming or monkey patch an existing feature. And then that's very hard to find and has surprising results, or it gets outdated. So I guess it comes down to who are you designing for? Are you designing for more of an open-source community, or you're at least designing for the people behind you that are going to be using this? Or is this a one-off adventure that you have chosen for yourself and future developers to discover? [chuckles] CHRIS: Yeah, I think that's a good summary, although I'm open to the fact that I exist in a state of contradiction. I'm also fine with that, to be clear. [chuckles] But I think what you said is true, and I think there is subtlety and nuance and reasons that it's okay in one context and less okay in others. And that idea of just like, I don't know, this is one of those things that I got in my head that I've done the thinking a long time ago to decide this is a thing I don't do. So now, in order to override that, I would have to do so much thinking. I would have to be like, all right, well, my brain tells me, no, but I'm going to go reread everything about monkey patching right now to convince myself that it's okay or to fully get the context and the subtlety and the nuance. And so sometimes we have to rely on that heuristic knowledge of monkey patching, nope, don't do that. That's not a thing, but other stuff is fine. And well, Active Support is fine because it's Rails. But it is interesting to observe contradictions and be like, huh, look at me go. All right. Well, moving on. STEPH: It's our lizard brain that's saying, "Hey, there's danger here." [laughs] CHRIS: Exactly. STEPH: I rather like living in a world of contradictions, or at least I find it that I'm drawn to them. And maybe that's also one of the things that I really like about consulting is because then I join all these different teams, and I hear all these different opinions. So as I'm forming these opinions around something like tests are great, I really like tests, and then someone's like, "I really hate tests." I'm like, "Cool. Let's talk. I want to understand why you don't like this thing that I think is wonderful because then I'm really interested." So I find that I'm often really drawn to contradictions as I like hearing opinions that are very different than mine and finding out why people have a different opinion than mine. CHRIS: Yeah, the world is full of contradictions. So it's, I think, at least a useful way to exist in the world, to be open to them and to enjoy exploring them. But yeah, I'll update in future weeks if I do end up going the refinements route. I'll let you know if anything interesting falls out of that. And now we're going to take a quick break to tell you about today's sponsor, Orbit. Orbit is mission control for community builders. Orbit offers data analytics, reporting, and insights across all the places your community exists in a single location. Orbit's origins are in the open-source and developer relations communities. And that continues today with an active open source culture in an accessible and documented API. With thousands of communities currently relying on Orbit, they are rapidly growing their engineering team. The company is entirely remote-first with team members around the world. You can work from home, from an Orbit outpost in San Francisco or Paris, or find yourself a coworking spot in your city The tech stack of the main orbit app is Ruby on Rails with JavaScript on the front end. If you're looking for your next role with an empathetic product-driven team that prides itself on work-life balance, professional development, and giving back to the larger community, then consider checking out the Orbit careers page for more information. Bonus points if working in a Ruby codebase with a Ruby-oriented team gives you a lot of joy. Find out more at orbit.love/weloveruby. STEPH: So we made a recent improvement to our feature flag system, which I'm really excited about, that we have found a way to improve that workflow because it felt really great that we're...well, okay, I should say that with a caveat. It felt really great that we're using feature flags to ensure that the main branch is always in a deployable state. But it did not feel great around how tedious it was becoming to add all of the feature flags specifically because each time we're adding a feature flag, we're having to add a migration. So we're having to run a migration, add the feature flag column, and then we can interact with that feature flag. And that part's okay. It was more removing that feature flag once we're done with it, that that part was starting to feel tedious because then that's becoming a two-deploy process. So one change is to remove the code that's relying on that feature flag. And then the second deploy was to actually drop that column because we wanted it to be safe to make sure that the code wasn't trying to reference a database column that didn't exist anymore, which is what happened at one point at first when we weren't doing the two-deploy process. So the improvement that Chris White came up with is where we're now using a Postgres JSONB column. And it's here that we actually have a feature flag YAML file. And we can have the name of the feature flag. We have a description of the purpose of the feature flag. And we have an enabled property on there, so then we can turn it on and off. The benefit of this is now we don't have to do that two-deploy process. And we also don't have to run a migration for when we're adding a new feature flag. So we can add it to the feature flag file, we can load it in, and then we can set that property to say, "Yes, this is enabled," or "No, it's not." And that has just simplified our feature flag process. One tricky bit that I believe the team ran into is around enabling this with Active Admin because Active Admin was just relying on those database columns to then turn something on or off. But then we've added some methods that work well with Active Admin that then say, "Read from here when you're checking to see if something is enabled," or "Look at this list to see which feature flags can be turned on and off." So it's been a really nice improvement, and everybody on the team seems to be in favor of the ways that we've improved this. So it's been really nice. So I wanted to come back and bring an update on how we've simplified our feature flag system. CHRIS: That definitely sounds like a nice improvement, the ability to just more regularly iterate around that or taking away the pain, any pain associated with using feature flags. Because they are such a nice thing to have, but there's that overhead. Then you start to have that voice in your head that's like, do I really need a feature flag for this? Could I just sneak this one in? And we always regret that. I had a similar thing this week where I wrote some code. I didn't quite write as many tests as I should have. And it was wildly broken, just like all of the connection points through everything were broken. But then it pushed me in an interesting direction where I was like, well, what I'm going to do is write an integrated test. It was basically an event coming in from a webhook that then enqueued a job, which did a thing, which then spit out an email. But it was broken at like three layers, and I was very embarrassed, if we're being honest. But, I don't know, I was just having a low energy afternoon, and I did not write the test, which I know I'm supposed to do. So similarly, any pain that we can take out of these things that we're supposed to do, any way that we can pave the happy path, I'm all about those. I'm intrigued because I think we've talked about this before, but it sounds like you guys have a very home-grown feature flag system. Is that true? STEPH: We do. CHRIS: Is there something about it that makes it unique to your situation, or was it just like that's what happened? Someone early on was like, "We need feature flags. I can just do the simplest thing that works," and then that's where you're at now or? STEPH: You're asking a very good question. And I'm trying to recall what led us to the state that we're in because I feel like we had this same discussion several episodes back when we were introducing the home-grown feature flag system. And I was like, there are reasons, but I didn't really dive into those reasons because it felt very custom to the application. But now I've forgotten what those reasons were. So I think you ask a great question where it'd be worth revisiting to confirm that yes, there's a reason for this home-grown version versus using something like Flipper. CHRIS: I'm glad I'm at least consistent over time in the questions that I ask and the heuristics that I have. This does feel like one of those things. It's not quite like crypto where I'd be like, we can never write our own crypto. But a feature flag system, I would be really intrigued if there are things that they are just workflows or functionality that you really need that are not supported by any of the existing solutions that are out there. I think audit trails is an interesting one. I think Flipper has a hosted product at this point that does that, but the local version wouldn't necessarily. So maybe that's a thing that you want to get. Again, I'd just be really interested. It sounds like the current state of the world that you have is enabled or disabled; just broadly, that's it. Those are the two states for any given flag. Is that true? STEPH: It is. There's nothing complex with the flags in that nature. And then we use naming to indicate if something is more for beta, so if it's a change that we're making to the codebase, but it's a feature flag that we plan on removing, versus maybe it's a feature flag for enterprise customers. CHRIS: Oh, interesting. I wouldn't think of using a feature flag in that context where it's going to be like a persistent, long-lived; this is conditional logic around some state or some property of the viewer. I think of feature flags as a way to gate code conditionally based on a point in time. And the reason I asked about the enabled-disabled basically like the Boolean state for your flags is when I've worked with feature flags in the past, I've liked having the ability to say, for this user or these users, or this group of users, which we've named this is our beta list…and it's the ten people that just really love the product and are happy to bump into some rough edges. And so we'll put things on for them first or even like percentages, so roll it out to 10% and then 50% and so on. And I think the larger an application and user base gets, the more that sort of thing starts to feel right. STEPH: Yeah, we certainly have some complexity around where each customer can really specify which features that they want. And then the features also differ a bit for each customer. So we are in a world where we're pretty customized or configurable for different customers. And whether that's something that we could simplify, that would certainly be a good question or something to pursue. But part of this also feels like our decision may have been based around what the system was already doing, and we're looking for ways to make slow improvements versus trying to redesign the whole thing. Because initially, the way we were customizing all of these different features for customers was in a YAML file. And that part was painful because then, anytime we wanted to make a change, it required a deploy. So the introduction of feature flags is really to get away from having to deploy to then make a small change like that. But now that we're in the space that we can easily configure that change and do that on the fly and not have to issue a deploy, I think we're now in a good space to reassess. And the team may have some really good answers. Perhaps I'm just not recalling as to why we've chosen the more home-grown feature flags. But yeah, I'll visit that topic and report back. Because I've been coasting along on our new system and enjoying it, but you're asking some really good questions. CHRIS: I mean, as an aside, if you're coasting along and really enjoying it, then maybe you don't need to ask any questions. It's still interesting. I would be intrigued to know. But if it's not causing you any pain, then you probably shouldn't change it. Because frankly, changing out the feature flag system is going to be non-trivial, I'm pretty sure. You could feature flag the feature flag system, and then you can transition from one to the other. You need a third feature flag system for that. But anyway, I digress. [chuckles] STEPH: You referenced crypto earlier. So I think I like the feature flag, the feature flag system. We should have some crypto flags in there somewhere. I think that's a thing too. But I think the main goal if I'm looking into changing it would be, circling back to what we were talking about earlier, is discoverability, so having a home-grown feature flag system. How easy is it for…if nobody was around on the team and there was someone new working with it, how easy would it be for them to turn something on or off? And if that's easy, then that's great. Then I think we've got a great home-grown system. If that's challenging, then I definitely think it's worth reassessing. And now a quick break to hear from today's sponsor, Scout APM. Scout APM is leading-edge application performance monitoring that's designed to help Rails developers quickly find and fix performance issues without having to deal with the headache or overhead of enterprise platform feature bloat. With a developer-centric UI and tracing logic that ties bottlenecks to source code, you can quickly pinpoint and resolve those performance abnormalities like N+1 queries, slow database queries, memory bloat, and much more. Scout's real-time alerting and weekly digest emails let you rest easy knowing Scout's on watch and resolving performance issues before your customers ever see them. Scout has also launched its new error monitoring feature add-on for Python applications. Now you can connect your error reporting and application monitoring data on one platform. See for yourself why developers call Scout their best friend and try our error monitoring and APM free for 14 days; no credit card needed. And as an added-on bonus for Bike Shed listeners, Scout will donate $5 to the open-source project of your choice when you deploy. Learn more at scoutapm.com/bikeshed. That's scoutapm.com/bikeshed. CHRIS: One of the things that's been interesting working lately in the app that I'm building is thinking about testing. We have a number of interactions with third-party services. Frankly, a lot of the app is that at this point. We have a handful of different external data providers systems that we're interacting with, webhooks and flows and things like that. And so we had to make that decision that you always have to make in these sorts of situations which is, how are we going to test this? And there's a wonderful blog post on the thoughtbot blog called Faking External Services in Tests with Adapters. It's by the one and only German Velasco. And it is a beautiful summary of the different approaches that you can take, but it really dials into one, which is the adapter pattern. There's also a weekly iteration episode on Upcase with Joël Quenneville, which discusses a little bit more of an exploration of the different options. There are sort of a handful of different options that we can consider your whereas the blog post by German talks specifically about the adapters approach. But to talk about them briefly, there's one where you can go all the way outside your app, spin up a fake service. Typically, we would do this with Capybara Discoball, which is a wonderfully named project. But it allows you to spin up a little Sinatra app type thing such that your web application is still making quote, unquote "real HTTP requests." This external service is going to catch that and respond with whatever canned data or structured responses that you want. But you still have the ability in that to, say, tell it to create data beforehand or be in a certain state or respond with certain data or have any stateful persistence. So if you create a record in that external system, and then later you query for it, that system can do that. But it has the complexities of now, your test suite is running different systems. And do you have thread-safety or all that kind of stuff? So that's a particularly complex end of the spectrum. At the lowest end would be stubbing and mocking. You just take whatever external clients you have, and you're mocking the API calls in them. That's the lowest end. And that's the one, especially for feature specs, those I try and avoid. Then there's a middle ground of like WebMock or VCR, those sort of things where you're saying whenever you see an HTTP request that looks like this, respond in this way. You record the cassettes, all that kind of stuff. And then there's the one that we've settled on, which is the adapters. So the client that we've introduced in our local codebase to interact with any of these third-party systems internally has a class attribute, a cattr_accessor in the Rails parlance, I believe. And that allows us to switch out the backend. And so we have a real HTTP backend, and that's the one that actually runs in production and a test in-memory backend. And that in-memory backend can implement whatever logic. We're ending up with one of them almost recreating this external service, sort of re-coding some of their inconsistencies or oddities but also features and whatnot. But it feels like it has struck just the right balance, and it allows our feature specs to be very rich, very real. We start up the world, and we say, "Hey, external service be in this state." And then I'm going to go visit the page. I'm going to see the data. But we are almost making real HTTP requests. It's very close. It's always an interesting choice to make here. I'm very happy with the one that we've made, but it's still not perfect. There are always going to be trade-offs between the different options here. But it's always interesting revisiting this and being like, which one am I going to choose today? STEPH: I feel like my natural progression when testing external services; I always start with WebMock, and then I progress to using adapters. And then from there, I go to actually replacing the HTTP service that is receiving and then returning a response, like you mentioned to Capybara Discoball earlier. So I can certainly see what you like about the adapter pattern. You mentioned that you're coding some of the inconsistencies. That feels very real. I'm curious if you have an example of how you've had to manage that recently. CHRIS: A specific example would be the external API responds with certain error codes or error structures. So it's an error. It has a status of a number and then a reason, or sometimes instead of a key that is reason; it's the message. So it's like, oh, okay, I see that in this endpoint, you respond with reason, and then this endpoint you respond with message. So now, do I encode that into my fake? I guess I do. So my adapter now implements things like that. There are cases where it's inconsistency where I'm like, well, this is the way they behave. So I would like our test suite to exist in the context of that because then our app is getting exercise in a real way. But in some cases, it's like little bits of logic validation that an external system might do if that's an important part of the flow. The app that we're building has a lot of forms and a lot of data validation and things like that. And so, we want to make sure that we have robust handling around that robust messaging to the user so that it's very clear what they need to do and how they need to respond to things. And so putting in little bits of that like, oh, that's how you format a phone number, okay, cool. Our fake will also format phone numbers in that way, things like that. STEPH: Every time the topic of testing external services comes up, I really, really want VCR to be the answer. I really like the idea of being able to validate that...because you'd mentioned that we're programming the expected return from this other service. And it's very easy to get out of sync with those actual responses. And then we don't really have a great way to stay up to date other than we wait for production or staging environment to fail. And then we realize something has changed, and we have to go and update either our mock or our adapter. And maybe that doesn't happen often if you're working with an external service that is very good about broadcasting when they have a breaking change. But if you're working with a less stable endpoint, then I always want VCR to really work. But it's just one of those areas where I'm like, yes, that's the thing that I want. I want this idea where I can rerun my tests in a way that they actually hit that service and record the response. But then I have felt pain [chuckles] from working with VCR and how it's configured, and how people have used it. It's one of those where I don't blame the library. I like the library. But the way people have implemented it and test I have felt a lot of pain from that. CHRIS: Yeah, I definitely agree with that. It feels like it's nice if you can push the mocking all the way out to that layer. Because like right now, our codebase has code in it that is subtly changing the behavior for a test, and I don't like that. It's only the swapping out of the adapter, so it's a very minimal thing. And we try and push all logic away from that such that the test adapter is as similar as possible to the real production situation. But it's enough difference that I agree I would like if VCR would just like, I catch the HTTP requests, and I respond with the same thing and sometimes we can pass through. I do think one of the fundamental limitations, or at least very hard to get right things, would be sequential requests. So I post to this endpoint in the external service, which creates some data. And then later, when I make a GET request to their endpoint, I should get back that data that I just created. That's, I guess, doable because you can have sequential requests, have cassettes that are first this request, then that request, then that request. And it knows that, like scope them to a given spec. But that feels extra difficult. And it does, again to your comment, the maintainers of that project do a wonderful job, but it's a really hard target to hit. STEPH: Well, and one of the other hard requirements with using a tool like VCR is then that external service really needs that sandbox staging environment that you can use. So that way you can create this data, you can rerun your test. So they're actually going to hit this real environment. They're going to create this data and that not have any harmful effects. And then you can record fetching that data. So it requires a lot of pieces to fall into place for it to work well. But then I was just thinking as you're talking about adapters, I'm like, yeah, I love the adapter pattern. I've really enjoyed that one for testing as well. But then I immediately start to think, oh, well, what happens when it gets out of sync, and how do we know that it got out of sync? And I don't have a great answer to that. CHRIS: Production blows up, obviously. STEPH: Production blows up, and then we go update our adapter. That's very calm. [laughs] CHRIS: It would be great if CI could more proactively catch that or...yeah, I agree. I would love if VCR would work because that facet of it is so attractive. But [chuckles] I've never gotten to walk exclusively the happy path with VCR. So here we are. This is a classic case of here's four options as to how we can think about this hard and important thing that we do in our codebases, and they all have trade-offs much like everything else in software. STEPH: I'm going to add this to my developer bucket list to live in a world where I can easily validate if an external API has changed or not and then also have tests that know when something has broken before production does. CHRIS: Ooph, dare to dream. I like it. STEPH: I'm a dreamer. CHRIS: I want to live in that world. Well, with that wonderful dream to take us out, should we wrap up? STEPH: Let's wrap up. The show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. CHRIS: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPH: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or a review in iTunes as it helps other people find the show. CHRIS: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us at @_bikeshed on Twitter. And I'm @christoomey. STEPH: And I'm @SViccari. CHRIS: Or you can email us at hosts@bikeshed.fm. STEPH: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. All: Byeeeeeeeee. Announcer: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success.

On this episode of Financial Planning For Canadian Business Owners, Jason Pereira talks to Chris Sabat - General Counsel McMillan Estate Planning. Today Chris is going to talk about a deeper dive into statement freezes. We have covered a freeze in the past, but specifically today, we are going to go over a little bit more around the thinking and the mechanics of how you execute an estate freeze and why? Episode Highlights: 1.16 Chris is a lawyer working with a team of lawyers, accountants, financial planners, and state planners at Macmillan Estate Planning Company in Calgary. Primarily McMillan serves entrepreneurial families throughout Western Canada. 1.58 Chris says it is not a situation where they find themselves going into their account and having a discussion that needs some advice taking that advice and trying to interpret that invoice for their lawyer. That is what kind of unique from my perspective about McMillan is that all those experts bring brought under one roof. So as per Chris, it really helps to facilitate a positive result in relation to something like an estate freeze.2.44 Jason says we all in our own industries get caught up in jargon and our level of what we consider based on proficiency or base understanding, but that's not what the average person thinks. Sometimes it is easy for us to get carried away, and sometimes it translates into something that is very simple and powerful. 3.05: According to Chris, Estate freeze is sort of a revenue Canada taxation of your state. What you're doing is you're freezing the tax liability. That will be imposed upon your passing and transferring that value deferring that taxation into the hands of your children or successive generations. In a nutshell if we want to stop the increased taxation of your estate while still providing you with access to that value, should you happen to need it. 4.45: Chris says that the revenue Canada recognizes with things like the succession of a business, one of the challenges is the tax building comes about on passing. This can be a way to help transfer between two successful successions within a family. 5.35: In most cases, the conversation on estate freezes typically gets started, probably by the accountant or the advisor, and then the lawyers get roped into it. Jason asks Chris to talk to about the first steps or requirements they brought to the table in this estate freezer. 5.55 Chris explains that the estate freezes can be used in relation to a wide variety of assets. It can even be used for things like publicly traded securities or investment accounts. So, it is not necessarily just restricted to the use of the transfer of shares or the freezing of the value of a corporation or qualified small business.6.48 Chris says as a first step, we must have a value. Whether it is an investment account that is the subject of the freeze, whether it is a real estate portfolio that contains primarily passive assets, or whether or not it's an active company qualified small business corporation. We need to have some sort of valuation.8.35: As per Chris, entrepreneurial families don't want to give up control. They always want to have some control over the business and its future going forward. 10.23: There are a couple of provisions in the tax code of section 85 which allow us to roll over assets. There are others like 51, which allows us to exchange, but these are all recognizing the tax code is being non-taxable events, they are basically tax-deferred events. 10.56 Jason asks Chris, “You mentioned two options you had, either held by the next generation or held by a family trust. Could you talk about the positives and negatives of both those strategies?” 11.05 Chris highlights the huge negative around the transfer or the direct transfer. It is like having the children as individuals subscribed to the grocers, a huge downside of that is that the children actually own shares. If the children own shares, that means Mom and Dad can't be in control. 13.14: Another huge advantage with the family trust from my perspective, especially for your qualified small business corporation, is the ability to multiply your lifetime capital gains exemption or the lifetime capital gains exemption that applies for the business, says Chris.15.29 Jason says, let's talk about what happens when you establish the estate freeze, and for whatever reason, you wanted to send your kids or whatever it might be, and you want to undo the estate freezes. So, what's involved with something like that? 16.02 Chris: One reason that the unwinding of the estate freeze comes about is because the vast majority of trusts have a 21-year deemed disposition, so we do the estate freeze. We have given the growth value to the family trust 21 years in the future. Revenue Canada in essence, gives you one of two options. You can pay the taxes on the capital gains; the family trust can pay the taxes or roll their shares out to one or more beneficiaries. So, it is not uncommon in families to see a freeze done maybe at least a couple of times during their lifetime.17.48: At the end of the day, what you are doing is you are transferring the shares to one or more of the beneficiaries, and it is a relatively simple exercise, says Chris19.06 Jason request Chris to explain the concept of a wasting freeze.20.05: Chris explains no one has a continual ongoing valuation of their business, so once you have got that fixed value, you quite conveniently redeemed and then wither away those capital gains. Typically, what we are doing is we are stopping future capital gains and getting rid of some of the historical capital gains that have been built up in the estate. 21.09: Talking about section 208, Jason inquires how does the misery, that is, the complications of that section of the act, impact? How is it to be approached at this point?21.27: Chris explains bill C208 is the law. It is not finalized. Revenue Canada has made it clear, or the Department of Finance has made it clear that they are going to propose amendments to Bill C208. What Chris likes about Bill C208 is that, in a sense, there is maybe a recognition that business succession planning is a long-term exercise. 24.40 As per Chris's observation about an estate freeze, especially when they utilize things like family trusts, is that unfortunately. They are often looked at as an accounting exercise. They looked at it from the perspective of how do we minimize tax? At the end of the day, we have got a business valuation. We have got a share swap. The question is that professionals assisting you understand all of the potential complications that can come about in these types of scenarios.27.10: Jason says estate freeze is simply an accounting strategy. This is not a taxation exercise at its core this is a financial planning exercise. This is a family dynamics exercise. This is an entrepreneurial succession planning exercise. 3 Key Points:The one thing unique about McMillan is that all professionals need to be involved in accountants, lawyers, experts, and things like business, succession, etc. So, all of those individuals have been brought under one roof. From Chris's perspective, the advantage of that is that it is not the sort of situation where maybe a client identifies, and we hear something about the concept of an estate freeze and how that might be advantageous. The kind of first level of an estate freezes it is about limiting capital gains on passing and then where it really becomes powerful. We can really create value, or at least minimize the taxation that is going to be imposed upon events like the sale of a business.The problem historically around succession planning was that there was a penalty if you happen to sell your shares to your children. It was treated as a dividend. With Bill C208, ultimately, what we are going to be able to do is facilitate transactions where there is actually an intergenerational transfer of the company shares, and you will be able to utilize that lifetime capital gains exemption. So, it does work in conjunction with an estate freeze. Tweetable Quotes: “In a nutshell, the bottom line about Estate Freeze is we are stopping the growth in one person's name and passing it on to another generation's name.” - Jason Pereira“Family trust is often the preferred method.” - Chris “In cases where the freeze happens, and there's an amount, especially in excess of the capital gains exemption amount, a lot of clients who speak, they plan on taking a given an income from the company for the rest of their lives.” - Jason Pereira“We know the Department of Finance is going to come in, and they are going to fiddle with the bill, and of course, their concern is surplus stripping. They don't want abuses of the Income Tax Act in order to allow people to extract value at a non-dividend tax rate at the capital gains rate.” – Chris “Bill C 208 once cleaned up it still stays true to the actual spirit of what you trying to do, would actually maybe eliminate for that would allow that deemed dividend on a wasting freeze to become a capital gain.” – Jason “When it comes to things like business succession when it comes to controlling issues when it ensures that at the end of the day other than just saving tax, the estate freeze meets the goals and objectives of the family.” – Chris Resources MentionedFacebook – Jason Pereira's FacebookLinkedIn – Jason Pereira's LinkedInWoodgate.com – SponsorLinkedIn – Jason Pereira's LinkedInChris Sabat: Website | LinkedIn Podcast Editing Transcript See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Tune in as Co-founder and CTO of Honeycomb, an observability platform, Charity Majors joins Chris to drop some knowlege bombs such as: Thinking of observability as being about the unknown unknowns: Allowing for high cardinality, high dimensionality, ad hoc queries at any point in time. Comparing instrumentation to a muscle: It's a habit that needs to be developed and fostered. Sincere continuous deployment: 15 minutes or bust. And bunches more, since y'all know you hear her name come up at least once during every other episode! Honeycomb.io (https://www.honeycomb.io/) o11ycast (https://www.heavybit.com/library/podcasts/o11ycast/) Charity's blog (charity.wtf) (https://charity.wtf/) Charity on twitter (https://twitter.com/mipsytipsy) Charity's post on cost of not doing continuous deployment (https://charity.wtf/2021/02/19/how-much-is-your-fear-costing-you/) Charity's post - The Engineer Manager Pendulum (https://charity.wtf/2017/05/11/the-engineer-manager-pendulum/) Transcript: CHRIS: Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Chris Toomey. And this week Steph is taking a quick break, but while she's away, I was joined by a special guest, Charity Majors. Now, folks who've been listening to the show lately will know I've been mentioning one idea or another from Charity almost every episode these days. Charity's work spans from the deeply technical through to the deeply human. And across all of it, she brings such a wealth of experience in pragmatism while consistently providing grounded, actionable advice about how we can improve all aspects of our work. And to give a bit more context for those who aren't as familiar with Charity's work, she is the co-founder and CTO of Honeycomb, which is an observability platform that we talk about more in the episode. Charity is also a prolific blogger, tweeter and speaker, and general leaver of digital breadcrumbs for the rest of us to hopefully follow. And Charity is also one of the hosts of the o11ycast podcast. That's observability, o11y podcast. And in fact, in the intro to the first o11ycast episode, Charity provides a beautiful summary of her approach to the varied work that we do. Quote, "I'm someone who's always been drawn to where the beautiful theory of computing meets the awkward, messy reality of actually trying to do things." And that quote rang so deeply true to me when I heard it and really encompassed what I see across the variety of work that Charity has shared with us. And frankly, I've been so impressed with the quality and quantity of wonderful content that Charity has shared over the years. I was really just thrilled to get the chance to sit down and talk with her directly. So without further ado, here's our conversation with Charity Majors. Thanks so much for joining us today, Charity. CHARITY: Thanks for having me. It's great to be here. CHRIS: As I've mentioned on many an episode, I've been following your work for a while now. And at this point, I would say that just about every Bike Shed episode has a reference to you and some piece of work that you have put out into the world, whether it be a tweet or a blog post, or a conference talk or something. So I'm so grateful for all the work that you put out into the world and for taking the time to chat with us today. CHARITY: That's so exciting. Yay. I feel right at home here then. [chuckles] CHRIS: Fantastic. Well, I want to dive in. I think it's sort of the core of some of the conversation that we'll be having, which is around instrumentation and observability, and observability as a newer, noveler form of how we think about this space. But to give a bit of context, I was hoping you might be able to give just the quick summary for anyone who might not be as familiar with observability as a concept and what that means now, and Honeycomb as a product and how it offers affordances around observability and pushes that envelope forward. CHARITY: Yeah, I think of the observability as being about the unknown unknowns. For a long time, all of the complexity was really bound up in the app. You had the load balancer, you had the app, and the database. And all the complexity you could just attach to a debugger and step through it if you had to. But then we kind of blew up the app, the monolith, and now it's in services scattered to the winds, and you can't just trace it. And so observability is a way of passing that context along hop by hop so that you can actually slice and dice in real-time. And the hardest problem is not usually debugging the code. It's finding out wherein the system is the code that you need to debug. And observability, if you accept my definition, which is it's about unknown unknowns, that you should be able to ask any question of your systems, understand any internal state just by observing it from the outside, well, then a lot of things proceed from that, in my opinion. Like, you need to be able to handle high cardinality, high dimensionality. You need to be able to string together a lot of these high cardinality dimensions. You need to... any kind of schema or indexing scheme in advance is verboten because you don't know what questions you're going to need to ask. And so there's a lot that flows from that definition; arbitrarily-wide structured data blobs is the source of truth, et cetera. But at its heart, it's just about the concepts, that our problems are getting harder and harder. We don't get paged to go, "Oh, that again? Oh, that again?" CHRIS: [chuckles] CHARITY: Ideally, we fix those things. But we still get paged. What the hell is this? It's about allowing engineers, empowering them in a reasonable amount of time to be in constant conversation with that code that's out there in the world because most problems honestly we never get paged about. They're too subtle until they snowball, and they pick up other problems. It's like a hairball under your couch until it gets so big and so impacting that it actually does alert someone. And then you just start picking up the rock and be like, oh God, what's that? Well, we've never understood this. And that's why ops has such a reputation for masochism. [chuckles] CHRIS: Absolutely. There are so many little pieces in what you just said that really deeply resonate with me, although there is one facet of some of the way that you talk about observability that I find interesting. I'm someone who likes to cling to the perhaps unrealistic these days ideal of a monolith of what if we were to just keep everything in the same place and all the data lived together in one database, and I could have foreign keys, and consistencies, and asset compliance? CHARITY: Which you should do for as long as you possibly can. You should never impose more complexity on yourself than you absolutely need to. And I would say that it's never not better to have observability than the older paradigms of monitoring and so forth. Some of Honeycomb's biggest and best customers still use monoliths. But they still find it really valuable to be able to apply the principles. I think that it's the microservices revolution, if you will, that forced this set of changes. It was inevitable. The steps that I started talking about, like, somebody would have because the older way just became untenable when you started adopting containerization and a lot of these things that made everything suddenly a high cardinality including the number of applications you have. But it's never not better to have high cardinality tools and to be able to instrument your code for spans and tracing. Tracing is still valuable even in the monolith. CHRIS: Yeah. As I've observed and started to play around with Honeycomb, that's definitely what I've seen is I'm almost exclusively working in the context of monoliths and, like I said, clinging to them for as long as I possibly can, which isn't going to be forever. CHARITY: It's true. [chuckles] CHRIS: I recognize that truth, but already I see the value. And so Honeycomb is a platform that you've built that allows for this high cardinality, high dimensionality ad hoc queries at any point in time. And so the idea that I can come into the tool and say, "Huh, I've got a new novel problem today." I don't need to re-instrument my code. I can just ask a new question, and the system will responsively be able to answer that question, ideally. And that feels like it holds true in a monolith all the more so, like you said, in an SOA architecture. But even in my safe little playground of everything is in the same space, I still don't know how everything's working all the time if we're being honest. So being able to answer those questions feels meaningful. CHARITY: Totally. I think that one way of thinking about the SOA or microservices is that it pushes a lot of what was in the operations realm into a realm of development, and suddenly you're responsible for a lot more of the operating of your services, things like retries and backoffs, and load distribution, and thundering herds, and all these things that ops traditionally took care of. Well, now you have to think about them. So you need some ops tools, too. What I like about...of course I like everything about Honeycomb because we designed it for this problem. But it speaks in the language of variables, and endpoints, and functions, and not in the low-level language of proc IPv6 timeouts and stuff where I feel like ops has also traditionally been the translation layer between software engineers and their actual code in production. And it's time to start giving software engineers those tools in their own language. CHRIS: Yeah. I love that. And I'm very happy to have Honeycomb as part of an instrumentation stack, which actually shifts me to the next question, which as I look at Honeycomb, very quickly the first time I saw it, I was like, oh okay, this makes sense. I want this in the world. CHARITY: Oh, I like you. [laughs] Not all people are like you. CHRIS: It might have been my second or third look, but it was definitely...once I got it, I was like, oh yes, I absolutely want that. But now, the question that I have is I typically will have a collection of tools that exist in this space. And there's a weird Venn diagram overlap of well, there's logging, and there's error tracking, and there are APM performance tools, and there's metrics, dashboards. And my sense is that Honeycomb perhaps can or an observability tool more generally can subsume a bunch of those, but it's not clear to me exactly. I think I probably still want logging. I think I still want error tracking as a discreet service tool that I'm using but maybe not APM and maybe not metrics as a distinct thing. Maybe I can infer those from a tool like Honeycomb. But I'm wondering what's the current thought on that? CHARITY: Well, part of what you're seeing is just observability tooling is very new, and we haven't had time to grow up. And here I'm like, officially, we play very nicely with all other vendors, and none of us would ever try to compete or take away from each other's faces. But I do think that ultimately, logging pretty much the only real use case for it is security stuff, the security archiving, just keep every log light. It's gotten cheap enough, but it's not actually useful for debugging or understanding your system, not really. It's useful for compliance. It's useful for proving that you did something in the past. Most logs are just a pile of trash, but they can be useful trash. And I understand people's emotional want to hold onto them for a while, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with keeping some trash around for a while, while you make it...[laughs] Sorry, not to totally slam on logs, but they are trash. CHRIS: I love the analogies that we're going for. [laughs] CHARITY: But the thing about observability is I do think the kind of center of the world is these arbitrarily-wide structured data blobs from what you can infer logs, from which you can infer metrics, from which you can roll-up. So I do think that well metrics are the right first tool for understanding infrastructure. Like if you're Amazon and you're responsible for all this hardware and stuff, you should be asking yourself, is my service healthy? But if you're someone who's writing and shipping code on top of that service you care about, can my request complete? What is my user's experience? And that's observability's territory. So I think that ultimately, I do think metrics, logs, and traces all get subsumed under the observability umbrella and performance management, too, if the tools get built correctly. There will still be use cases. They will just get smaller, for logs, for standalone metrics tools. Honeycomb just launched our metrics product. Metrics is like a 30-year-old piece of technology. Prometheus and Datadog are going to be the last best metrics tools ever built. We have wrung the water out of this laundry. [chuckles ] But we aren't trying to compete with that. What we are trying to do is give people an on-ramp into Honeycomb. They've got decades' worth of stuff. They've been corralling metrics, structuring them. You rely on them. You don't want to give them up. So yeah, let's feed them in. Let's give them an overlay. And number two, the more interesting use case for me is when you're a software engineer who's writing and shipping code, you do care about did the memory usage just triple, or is the CPU completely buzzing after I shipped my last change? But there's really only like three or four of those metrics that you really care about as system metrics. The rest are mostly legacy. CHRIS: I like the idea that aspirationally, Honeycomb is moving towards a place where given sufficient input data, given this arbitrarily-wide data blob with high cardinality, et cetera, that we can infer basically all of those others from it. But also speaking to also observability is somewhat new, and so we got to build a lot of product to get there and that idea that there is perhaps a space right now where you might be bringing together a few of these tools. But if there is a future world in which I can have one of these tools that just handles everything and tells me about my code and directs me to the line of code that I incorrectly instrumented, that would be wonderful. Happy to do the work in the interim to cobble it together from the pieces. CHARITY: The place in the meantime that we're at where all of these big vendors are acquiring other vendors and trying to put together...they're like, we have three pillars. Coincidentally, we have three products to sell you. It's like, it's not good for the users because when you're...like, you're sitting in the middle here. You've got your metrics dashboard. It's telling you that there's a problem. Okay, if you can't slice and dice and figure out what it is, you have to jump over into logs and visually correlate based on the times and hope no timestamps are wrong and try and find the thing. And then, oh, okay, so you want to trace it. So you've got to copy over and try and find that in your tracing product and hope that that would get sampled in. It's not good. You can't follow the question from the beginning. I have a problem to the end. I have a solution and back. And it's not linear. You're going to be following a trail; then you're going to need to back up, then you're going to find another trail. And then you're going to want us to zoom out and see who else is impacted. And you really can't back your way into that with different products. You have to start with the arbitrarily-wide structured data blob. What does confuse me is I know that New Relic is built on this. New Relic has these. And we almost didn't start Honeycomb because we were just like, edit data, and New Relic is going to figure it out. Here we are like six years later, and they still haven't fcking figured it out. [laughs] But like Datadog, they aren't based on that arbitrarily-wide structure, so they are really...and I know that they're trying to get...all of these big vendors are trying to get to where Honeycomb sits technically faster than we can grow up and become a business. CHRIS: The race is on. CHARITY: Yeah. It's fun. CHRIS: One of the related things that I've seen you talk about a few times is the idea that instrumentation is a muscle. It's a habit that needs to be developed and fostered, and that rings very true to me. At the same time, a lot of my instrumentation work has been more in a reactive space. If we're being completely honest, something went wrong; we can't figure it out from the information that we have available, so then we go in, and we add a new logging line. We wrap the code in some way. And so I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about that. What does that look like in practice or perhaps some examples or something? But how can we tease that apart and understand that a little bit better? Because it sounds wonderful to me. CHARITY: I think of instrumenting a lot like commenting your code. It's a way of thinking to the future and reverse engineering; what am I going to care about? What is someone else going to care about? And I really do think of commenting as just a less true version of instrumentation, honestly. It's you talking about what you think the code should be doing, but you've left production out of the loops. You don't know what the code is doing. [chuckles] But ideally, they're kind of the same muscle. It's why you're writing your code. You've just developed a monitoring thread almost in your brain. It's like, yeah, this is going to be valuable. Oh, this is going to be valuable. And so I do think that it's on vendors to make sure that we do as much for you as possible. And this, honestly, is the long winding journey to Honeycomb finding product-market fit, which took almost three and a half, four years. And for a long time, I was like, it's not magic. You have to understand your code. You have to blah, blah, blah, which is true. But also, we need to walk closer to the user. We need to make it easier. We need to do the beeline, which will initialize the event, pre-populate it with a bunch of stuff, create the framework so that all you have to do as a user is just printf now and then just stuff this in the blob, vendors making it as easy as possible, as automated as possible. We have more to do. We really should be pre-populating it with all of the language internals and all of the stuff about the environment. We'll just be glad to tap that well. But there's something that we can't do for you, which is understand what you're trying to do and what is important. Honestly, here's a story from the past. The reason that New Relic was so big, they hit the ground, and they super hockey-sticked everything was because they dovetailed with the rise of Ruby and Rails because Ruby allows for so much fcking monkey patching. Every web app looks the same. You can just be like, we assume all this crap, and so we could make it just like magic for you. You just install this library. Boom, you're off to the races. Well, try as you might, I want to say a type language like Go, you can't do that stuff with. You can't make it as magical. You have to think a lot more about how you're structuring things for better or for worse, which is why their growth slowed because those languages just aren't so popular anymore. So it's trade-offs all the way down. Yes, everybody should be an expert in forecasting the future and understanding all the subtle things that you don't know you're going to know, but you're super are going to want to know. But as you've discovered, most of your learning comes from being in the trenches, which is why it's so good for devs to be on call and be close to their code and be in this constant conversation with it because you develop a sixth sense. I can't tell you exactly why I know it's going to be a problem, but I'm just going to wrap it because I'm pretty sure it is. CHRIS: There was a tiny bit that I was hoping that you would have some very specific like, oh, you just do X, Y, and Z. I kind of knew that wasn't going to be the answer, but it also represents something that I so appreciate about your thinking and the work that you put out into the world, which is it's realistic. Sometimes you're like, you know what? There's going to be some tacit knowledge involved here. You got to put in the work. You got to learn the thing, and that's just true sometimes. And so I appreciate your willingness to be like yeah, you know what you got to do? You got to do the work. And then after that, you'll know...and so there's sort of a virtuous cycle that can happen here. There is a feature, as far as I understand it, of Honeycomb, too if I can briefly hype up your products slightly but the idea that you can observe the series of questions that another developer asks. So if they were in a debugging session, you can see like, oh, they asked this, and then they asked this, and then they filtered on that. CHARITY: It's like your Bash history but for debugging. [chuckles]. CHRIS: I want this for everything. CHARITY: Right? CHRIS: Let's have a shared hive mind of the developers on a team, both in terms of our observability tool but also just kind of everything. CHARITY: What did you do? CHRIS: Yeah, what did you do, and why? What were you thinking? I saw you went down a road there, but then you stopped and backed up, and you went a different way. That's interesting to me. CHARITY: This is why we keep trying to build things into the product that will incentivize people to write texts about what they're doing, whether it's retroactively applying tags or writing a breadcrumb to yourself. Why was this meaningful? As you're putting it in your bookmarks, why are you putting it in your bookmarks? Collaboration is just as much about collaborating with your past self and your future self as it is with the rest of your team. I don't remember why the fck I did that two years ago. I don't know. I don't know why I did that two months ago. But the more you can leave breadcrumbs for yourself and then surface that to the team, you're right; it's transformational. I wanted this so selfishly because I have never been that person on the team who loves graphs. I hate graphs. I don't think visually very well at all. I've been working with my friend, Ben Harts, off and on for like 10, 12 years now. He's always the person I've hired repeatedly. He's always the person who comes in and makes the graphs. And then I look over his shoulder, and I bookmark them. I can be up all night making the perfect dashboard. And then I'm like, great, mine. [chuckles] So there's room in the world for both of us. But the point is that not all of us should have to go through that effort. [chuckles] We should be able to learn from each other. Only one person should ever have to have to craft the perfect query, and then the rest of the team should be able to effortlessly piggyback on it. CHRIS: Yeah, absolutely. And again, I want that but for everything. I dream of a future in which that's true. CHARITY: And so much of debugging is this wandering path where you go down the wrong place, and you need to be able to zoom back to all right; where did I first know that I had a beat on it? CHRIS: There's a corollary that I see to pair programming where one of the things that I find so valuable is, what Google query do you type in when you hit that wall? When you're like, oh, this isn't working as I'm thinking, and then you type something and I'm like, whoa, wait, I wouldn't have even thought to ask that question of the internet. CHARITY: Oh, I love that. That's fantastic. CHRIS: But now you've productized that, and I love that. So thank you for building that thing in the world. CHARITY: Excellent. CHRIS: Shifting gears slightly, one of the other themes that you really pushed for in the world is the idea of continuous deployment and not like yeah, you should ship your code pretty quickly after you merge it, but true, sincere continuous deployment. CHARITY: 15 minutes or bust. CHRIS: 15 minutes of bust, test in production. There are some really wonderful if we're being honest, scary themes that you talk about. I love the ideas that you're putting out there, but they're probably the things that I look at, and I'm like, ooh, that seems like a whole thing right there. CHARITY: It assumes a lot. Let's put it that way. It assumes a lot. CHRIS: It definitely does that. I desperately want to get to that world. I want to get to the place where there's that confidence. And similarly, there's a theme that you've talked about around Friday deploy freezes and why that's not a good thing. And the empathy for humans that part's good, but maybe we're applying it in the wrong way if we say we're not allowed to deploy code on Friday. Because it's like yeah, deploying code is terrifying and scary. No, let's solve that problem. But I wonder if you can talk a little bit about that. How do you get there? How do you get to the place where continuous deployment is a realistic outcome for you? CHARITY: Yeah, that's a very good question. There are no easy answers, unfortunately. And the answer is always going to depend on where are you starting from? Are you starting from a clean slate? Are you starting...a lot of the advice that I give sounds like Looney Tunes to someone who's coming from enterprise because they're just like, "You don't understand the constraints that I am operating under." And I'm like, "Yeah, you're right. I'm not of your world. That probably shows." [chuckles] So I think the easiest way, though, is always when you're starting a new project that what you do on day one would be to set up your CI/CD and deploy it to prod before you've even started building. My favorite analogy to that is to like...you know the myth about Alexander the Great and his horse how when he was a little boy he would pick it up every day before he had breakfast? And so, by the time he was an adult, he could pick up his horse because he picked it up every day, and it was never hard. When you start deploying that way, it's never hard. When you're just like, okay, anytime this gets above 10 minutes, we're going to put in a couple of hours of work, and it's never hard. It's just the easiest thing in the world. And everything's easier because you get to watch what you're doing and in real-time, and you develop that muscle of I'm merging it to main. I'm going to go look at it in a couple of minutes. And you don't feel done in your gut until you've looked at it. And that's doing it on easy mode. And you can do this in a hybrid way. Even if you have like, well, I'm paying for a deploy. Nobody is saying you have to sign up for a long, painful deploy process when you got to spin up a new project. And I've seen it gain momentum. If you start something that's clearly the new way, everybody sees how fast this team is executing. Everybody wants a piece of it. And so you start learning from the way that you are able to do it in your unique environment. You're the best evangelist to the rest of your team members because you know the subtleties. You know the problems. So that's the easy answer is start fresh. [laughs] CHRIS: [laughs] That makes sense. I do, again, I appreciate the pragmatism or the realism of the way that you approach a lot of the topics. CHARITY: Another answer, though, it's just that the engineering work involved in taking a deployed pipeline down from hours, days, to 15 minutes it's just engineering work. It is just labor. It can be done. The political problems are the hard ones. I mean, in the past, sometimes our deploy probably would get up to two or three hours, and we were just like, oh God, this is not…put in the work. You just start instrumenting your pipeline, and you start looking at where the tests are taking time. And it will pay dividends every bit of time that you pay down, which is why I really see these long…our own pipelines is it's a vacuum of engineering leadership that they've allowed it to happen because there's nothing fancy about it. You just put in some work. CHRIS: Yeah, the solvability of the technical challenge feels very true, but what you're saying of it's people problems which again, that's always true of the tech stuff. CHARITY: It is people problems, but I also hate it when people are just like, oh, it's people problems. That means mysterious and unsolvable. Now, most of the time, when you see this, it's a lack of collective confidence in themselves. They see this as being as just for the elite engineers, or only ex-Googlers are allowed to do this or something. Or they go to conferences, and they hear about it, and they're just like, God, I wish I was allowed to do that, or I wish we could do this. But the thing is that engineers have more power than they realize. We build these companies. They wouldn't exist if it's not for us. We have all the power if we just choose to use it. I know that a lot of these people who I've talked to that were just like, "Oh, I wish we…" I'm like, "Have you ever lobbied for it?" And they're like, "No, I just know we could, or that's someone else's decision." I'm not going to promise you that you can get whatever you want. But I promise you that if you start speaking up if you start talking to your colleagues and being like, "Wouldn't it be nice?" And they start speaking up...if a quarter of the engineers want something in the company, it gets done. [chuckles] CHRIS: That definitely feels true. And to the topic of actually lobbying for this and having the hard conversations internally and working on the people problems, you have done, I think, a really fantastic job of providing actual benchmarks in terms of timing and what does this look like as a practice and what are the multitasks? CHARITY: It's so expensive. It's so costly to organizations. And it's the easy answer for any engineering leader to be like, "Well, we need to hire." That is the laziest answer in the world. You probably don't. You probably just need to fix your CI/CD system and then bask in the resources that you suddenly freed up. [chuckles] CHRIS: You have a wonderful blog post that really I think does such a good job of highlighting the cost that you're talking about there, the human costs for every slowdown in your deploy process, it has this downstream ramification. And having that as sort of a piece, a bargaining chip in the conversation of here's a voice that is saying a very clear thing about this cost of not doing this work, which granted, it's always trade-offs. Everything is an optimization. But here is a way to actually measure the cost of not going with this approach. And again, I appreciate you're putting that out there in the world so that the rest of us can be like, "Look, on the internet, it says so." CHARITY: [chuckles] Exactly. I'm happy to be the internet for you. But it's so true because other people in your business don't want you to suffer too, either. They don't want everything to get slow. They just aren't equipped to understand the cost of this slowness the way that engineers are. And I feel like sometimes this is...it's like we're always lamenting like, why does product get to own all the engineering cycles? Where aren't we allowed to do all this other stuff? I promise you're allowed to. You just have to make the case because the case is righteous and justified. But you have to explain to them the cost that it's incurring your organization in terms of your ability to execute and in terms of your ability to hire and retain people. You just have to explain those costs. And engineers are just like, "Well, we only say it once, right?" Well, that's not how you win arguments. You have to say it. You'll probably lose. And you say it again, and you'll probably lose. You say it a third. And you will win eventually because you control all of the creative labor of the technical organization. So just make the fcking case. [chuckles] I don't know. I make it sound simple; it's not. CHRIS: I love the sound bite of the cause is righteous, and that is the kernel of the thing here, which is like, just to be clear, this is a virtuous path that you were going down, battle for it, work towards it, absolutely. So I think a related topic here, so continuous deployment is one of those things that you want to get to and a practice that you want to evolve to. But in exploring some of your other work, one of the things that I was exposed to is the DORA metrics, which is not something that I hadn't seen before. But for anyone who's unfamiliar, the DORA metrics is a set of four key metrics to track developer and team productivity, so their deployment frequency, lead time for changes, change failure rate and the time to restore the service. And they are deeply interesting because frankly, I have for a long time felt like developer productivity was not really a quantifiable thing. CHARITY: It's not, yeah. CHRIS: Individual developer productivity I still feel like this is a bad thing. Don't do that. But team productivity these metrics actually are like oh, actually, as I look at those, those seem like the good ones. We should do that. I'm wondering, what does that look like in practice when you see that actually employed within an organization? What are the feedback loops, and how does this appear in the world? CHARITY: Yeah. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Jez Humble, Gene Kim, and Nicole, who worked on this for years and got this out into the world, just putting some actual research behind the stories that we were telling ourselves about productivity. And people who haven't read Accelerate...a lot of people are always asking me, do we have any stories? Do you have any research? Do you have any proof or something? I just always point to the book Accelerate. That's where it all comes from. Yeah, it's true because it's such a noisy world. When you're an engineering org, and there's just so much going on, and there's so much stuff that bugs you personally, and some of the stuff that you have true beliefs about. And it's hard to just cut through the noise. And I feel like that's the great gift of the DORA metrics. If you start focusing on one of them, you will lift your org out of poverty, and the others will get better too. And it provides just this wonderful focus point for teams that aren't sure where they stand or aren't sure how to get better because it can be so mystifying. When you're in the trenches, and you're just like, why does everything feel so hard? Why is it that we thought this would take two days, and here it is two months later, and we can't ship anything? And it feels like the more we ship, the farther behind we get. These are the beacon of hope. It's like, you pay attention to these, your lives will get better. You can dig yourself out of this ditch. That's certainly been true for the teams that I've been on. And high-performing teams, I think we all have this idea in our heads that high-performing teams are ones where the great engineers join when in fact, those great engineers could join your team, and they wouldn't get any more done than you are. Because most of our productivity is defined not by the data structures and algorithms that you know but by these social-technical systems that we swim in every day, it's the water around us. It's the friction involved in getting that code to production. If it takes the magical engineer from Google 24 hours to get their code changed out, well, they're not a member of a high-performing team either. You mentioned earlier all these people are out there who haven't experienced a world like this don't live in a world like this. And in my experience, they often lack a lot of confidence because they don't think they're that good, or they don't think that they can have nice things. And the DORA metrics that's your ticket to a better life. It's like go to college and graduate because it kicks off these virtuous feedback loops, these cascading cycles of things getting better for everyone and people getting more excited and energized. And they just don't get burned out by shipping too much code. They get burned out by not being able to ship code. And if you're a leader in any type of organization, and I don't just mean manager, I mean any type of senior engineer or manager or whatever, then it's part of your job to pay attention to these metrics, lobby for them, track them, track them on your own if you must, and try to make them better because every engineering team has two customers or two...whatever. I'm blanking on the word. But it's your customers and your engineering team. You're responsible to both of them. And I've never seen one of those sets deliriously happy and the other set miserable. They tend to rise and fall in tandem. CHRIS: I'm just nodding along for anyone in the audience who can't see what my head's doing. But I love so much all of the things that you're saying and, again, the passion and conviction that you bring to this conversation because these are amorphous, hard to pin down ideas. But I appreciate the North Star that you're setting across all of these different things that as I'm reading, I'm like yeah, that sounds true. I want that. Those things are the things that I want. But interestingly, one of the other threads that I see weaving through a lot of your work is obviously we've talked a bunch about just deeply technical topics thus far, but also a lot of your work spans across to the interpersonal. And frankly, even dividing in that way is not representative of the world because it's a Venn diagram mishmash of some days it's technical, some days it's personal, some days it's both. But one of the things that you've talked about is the engineer manager pendulum which I find super interesting. I think every engineer at some point has that question, that internal oh, do I want to go engineer track or manager track? And this distinct idea or the idea that management is a promotion and any other movement would be different, and you have wonderful things to say about that. The other thing that you've pointed out is that former managers can often make great engineers after the fact because of the earned empathy that they have now from looking at things from a slightly different angle. CHARITY: Amazing engineers. CHRIS: But I'd love to hear a little bit more of your thoughts on that because I think it's such an important space, and I've definitely previously operated under I'm an engineer, and then I guess I got to be a manager, and then I guess I don't know where I go from there, but it's this very linear path. And you shook that worldview of mine, and again, I appreciate that shaking. But yeah, I'd love to hear a little bit more about that. CHARITY: The best people that I've ever worked with have been engineers who had been managers for a while and then went back to engineering, and it's not just empathy, although there's a lot of that too. It's also a deeper understanding of the business and the reason that we do things. So much of being a powerful engineer is choosing the right work to work on so that you get a lot done very efficiently and quickly, and you don't spend a lot of time just foundering, which you've mastered, and you know the basic technical principles. And how do you get better? A lot of it is just getting better at identifying what to do and what not to do because we have to not do so much more than we can ever do in order to move forward. I wrote a blog post as a present for a friend of mine who was a director of engineering at the time, and he was suffering. He was just miserable, and he kept thinking about going back to engineering, just kind of dragging his...because he wasn't in an org where that was really celebrated or anything. When you've been there from the beginning, you built the organization; you're like a senior director and everything. It feels like a long way to fall. And I wrote that post for him. And he did end up going on to be an engineer after that. And he was so much happier. But I think he was surprised at how he didn't fall at all. He actually probably had...I think the engineers had a higher opinion of him afterwards when he was one of them again. And he still had this vaunted voice because he could speak to how the system had been there since the beginning. And he basically got to look around and look out farther than the engineers who were heads down every day and go, "This is going to bite us. I'm going to take a small team. We're going to do this forward-looking security product." I don't want to identify details, but that for me really just kind of cinched...It was like the more we can strip hierarchy out of these discussions; the healthier everyone's going to be because we're just monkey brains. And the monkey brain in our skull hates losing hierarchy, hates losing power or stance or anything. And I think that the thing that you learn after you've been a manager is a lot of it is just the wizard behind the curtain, the idea that you have more power as a manager. You have more of some types of power, and you have a lot less of other types. And you're just as constrained as the engineers but in other ways. And the path moving forward is not to dominate people or be above them but to combine your powers for good and self-sort to find a place that actually gives you the most joy. CHRIS: It's a wonderful philosophy. And actually, a thing that you said in there really stuck out to me, which was you wrote that blog post as a gift to someone, and that is such a kind thing to do. And it also, again, reflects what I see in your work overall. You're really clearly leaving a trail of breadcrumbs behind you to help other folks that are traversing a similar path by questioning aspects of it. Or how do we do this well? Why is everyone sad, and why is it bad? And so again, I so appreciate all of that work that you've done. CHARITY: I think that that comes from my lifetime in the trenches of operations. [chuckles] Ops is notorious for the pain that we bring upon ourselves and try to solve. But I would just like to add a pitch out there for other ops engineers of the world and our colleagues. I was fortunate enough to rise up through the ranks in organizations that really respected operations. We always felt we ruled the roost. We felt like we were way above all the other developers. We got to say what went into production and what didn't. And I feel like ultimately...if you have to have an imbalance of power, I think that's slightly healthier than the developers ruling the roost. Ultimately, there shouldn't necessarily be any imbalance of power. But I just want to pitch it; this whole no-ops thing really got my goat for a while there because operations is just the engineering workaround delivering value to users. I think the second wave of DevOps is now about okay, software engineers; it's your turn. It's time to learn to write operable software. And so I just wanted to throw in my hat in the ring for all the ops people out there. You're just as good. You're just as good as anyone else. [chuckles] CHRIS: I mean, it's sort of a theme that I've seen in your writing of everybody's doing good, important work and breaking down hierarchy and just collaboratively moving in the same directions and trying to choose the right North Stars to aim towards. And yeah, it's all fantastic. And so with that, I think we probably reached a perfect spot to wrap up. But Charity, if folks want to keep up with more of your work online, where are the best places to find you? CHARITY: My blog post is at charity.wtf, and I'm @mipsytipsy on Twitter, and of course Honeycomb.io and our blog. CHRIS: We will include links to all of that and many of the blog posts, and other podcasts interviews that you've been on, and a bunch of just various things that I collected as I was preparing for this episode because, again, you've produced such a wealth of information on the internet that I want to point as many folks as possible towards those things. But yeah, thank you so much for taking the time. CHARITY: My pleasure. CHRIS: The show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. STEPH: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore. CHRIS: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review on iTunes,; you as it really helps other folks find the show. STEPH: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @bikeshed or reach me on Twitter @SViccari. CHRIS: And I'm @christoomey. STEPH: Or you can reach us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. CHRIS: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. All: Bye. Announcer: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success._

Evidence-based Policy relies on strong data and measurements. So if you want to improve a development target like nutrition, you need to be able to measure that. But with fisheries and aquaculture, we often don't have the metrics we need to make sound policy decisions. This podcast is a part of a series on fisheries and nutrition and a movement to bring fisheries into international food policy and programming.   Interview Summary   Welcome to the Leading Voices in Food podcast. I'm Sarah Zoubek, associate director of the World Food Policy Center at Duke University. My co-host today is World Food Policy Center alum and Michigan State University, fisheries social scientist Abigail Bennett.   We've got another full house of guests today with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's ecologist and epidemiologist, Chris Golden and fisheries planning analyst, Nicole Franz at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO.   So I'll just jump right in, garbage in and garbage out, is what I often hear researchers say when referring to making decisions based on bad data or essentially no data. In your view, what are some of the most important data and information gaps for fisheries and aquaculture, and then subsequently for developing policy that promotes their contributions to food and nutrition security.   Chris - One of the most interesting things is that as a society, we still don't know who is eating what and where. So we have all of this data on food production around the world. We have data on trade in many cases, but we don't really know who's eating things. What types of food they're eating, why they're eating it. And so all of these data are essential for us to understand food behaviors, nutritional status, and the emergence of sustainable food systems. Thinking about aquatic foods, we also have these same types of issues. Consumption data is really patchy. We also really don't understand how food is being distributed geographically within a nation by socioeconomic status, age group, or gender dynamics, we really struggle to understand how policies that increase aquatic food production or environmental changes that might shock aquatic food production, might have downstream effects on people's lives.   Nicole - Chris, you already pointed out really crucial gaps. So I would just like to compliment with two more. And the first relates to the nutritional value of diverse types of aquatic foods. Aquatic foods provide micronutrients and essential fatty acids, and obviously in a very different way between these different products. The nutritional value of a white fish filet is very different from the nutritional value of a portion of small dried fish that is consumed whole. And this small dried fish for example, is particularly important as part of the diet of large amounts of people, particularly in Africa, but also in Asia. So better understanding those nutritional values of the different aquatic food products can really make a major difference in ensuring that those who are most in need have access to highly nutritious and aquatic foods. For example, one way to use that knowledge and apply that information is through targeted school feeding programs.   A second data and information gap relates to the origin of aquatic food supplies. We often talk about catch about the production volume but there's less information currently available on the underlying production system. So who is catching that fish and what species is produced by what kind of production system. National catch statistics are usually not differentiating for example between large scale and small scale fisheries. But knowing these underlying production systems is really of crucial importance to inform food security and nutrition sensitive policies. Small-scale fisheries for example, they tend to fish a larger variety of species than industrial fisheries. And this variety then also tends to be consumed while what is coming from industrial fisheries, a good part of the catch is often not used for human consumption.   In 2012, the World Bank, FAO and WorldFish worked together on a study that was called Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. And in that study, it emerged that half of the global catch in developing countries is in fact produced by small scale fisheries. Even more importantly, the study found that between 90 and 95% of the small scale fisheries landings are destined directly for human consumption. So this really provides a strong justification to understand what the underlying production system is, because it has policy implications.   Abigail - Nicole I'd like to ask you a little bit more about the Illuminating Hidden Harvest study that you mentioned and the kinds of data and metrics it uses to understand the contributions of small scale fisheries in particular to food and nutrition security.   Nicole - Thanks Abby. In fact, the Illuminating Hidden Harvest study was inspired by the 2012 Hidden Harvest study. It is expanding the scope to better capture the nutrition and food security aspects in relation to small scale fisheries. So we're partnering with WorldFish and with Duke University for the production of this Illuminating Hidden Harvest study. And this is an attempt to contribute to closing, or maybe at least narrowing some of the current data and information gaps by providing more evidence on how small scale fisheries in particular contributes to sustainable development. The methods we have developed consists in data that we collected from 58 countries and territories. We also have submitted a survey that was replied to by over 100 countries, and we're also drawing on existing global databases. So we're combining all of this information in order to better understand the contribution of small scale fisheries to sustainable development.   One of the things we're doing in the nutrition work is building on work that was conducted by Christina Hicks from Lancaster University to model the nutrient content from fish. This is also an attempt to model nutrient content more widely, and this should be helping to value catch in terms of nutrition rather than only in terms of economic value. The catches from small scale fisheries are really very valuable in terms of nutrient richness, especially in terms of calcium of iron and zinc. And these are three nutrients that are often lacking in the diets in particular in low and middle-income countries. So these findings are incredibly important from a policy standpoint because they're showing the need to secure small-scale fisheries production systems in the context of growing competition over access to water in coastal areas, but it really underlines the need to maintain those important food production systems that are servicing so much nutrients to in particular, the most vulnerable and marginalized parts of populations.   Within the Hidden Harvest study, we're also using an indicator of household proximity to fisheries to understand better how the consumption of fish supports the nutritional benefits of the consumers. And this has really helped to illuminate how important fisheries are for the diets, especially for some groups within the population, including children between six and 24 months, which is really critical window for nutrition. So having access to affordable nutritious aquatic food is fundamental and using this indicator of household proximity to fisheries, has really helped us to visualize how the benefits from small scale fisheries are distributed within a country.   Abigail - Thanks, Nicole, that's really exciting. How can listeners access the results when they're available or keep up with the study as it progresses?   Nicole - We have a website and we're also sending out newsletter and we're sharing how the study is progressing. And we are planning to release a study at the end of the year, and it will obviously be available online on the pages of the three three partner organizations, FAO, WorldFish and Duke University.   Sarah - Chris, you had mentioned various databases. Can you explain a little bit more how that's filling the data gaps for diet and nutrient considerations for fisheries and aquaculture? What are we measuring here?   Chris - There are so many different types of databases in different parts of the world being produced by different users and all of them are so important, particularly in the ways that they can be used together. I'm going to list the ones that I've used in my own work or am aware of. The Global Nutrient Database is jointly produced by FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization) and IHME (the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation). And it produces an integrated nutrient supply estimate for all foods that are produced with the expectation that they are being consumed at the national level. And so you have consumption data that is then matched under nutrient composition tables to understand approximately the nutrient supply at the national level. If you do some modeling to estimate how those national supplies are being consumed at sub national level across age and sex groups, you can actually make estimates of nutrient deficiencies at the national level. This becomes really important in terms of targeting what types of food interventions or nutritional interventions need to be undertaken at national scales.   There's also something called the Global Dietary Database based at Tufts University that has aggregated most of the world's 24 hour recall data considered to be the gold standard for dietary assessment and has aggregated all data that was conducted in nationally representative ways, I think it's for more than 80 countries, to understand how food items are consumed, how they're distributed sub nationally. And so the information within that, that allows us to have an idea of how the Global Nutrient Database might be disaggregated at sub-national scales.   There's also a database called GENuS, Global Expanded Nutrient Supply Database. This is a unique database in that it is completely open access, it can be found online in the Harvard Dataverse and it also produces nutrient supply estimates that uses the FAOs food balance sheet data, and then assigns nutrient composition data to the food balance sheet data and corrects for ways in which production might actually be translated into consumption.   The last thing that I'll mention is that we have recently developed something called the Aquatic Food Composition Database. We noticed how important the diversity of production systems of species, of the parts of fish that people were consuming and how little we knew about the nutrient value of those different parts of fish. And we went through a systematic scoping review of all of the data that was available in the peer reviewed literature. We went through all of the national food composition tables, and we wove that together into one integrated database and we called it the Aquatic Food Composition Database. And this has more than 3000 different aquatic food species, inclusive of both plant and animal source foods, an entire suite of different nutrients. From iron, zinc, individual fatty acids, protein, vitamin A, vitamin B12, etc. And then also classifies data based on whether it was wild, farmed, what geographical region it was produced in, and the part of the fish that is being tested. So whether it's the filet, the liver, a whole fish, whether it's dried or fresh. So any processing that is involved before the nutrient analysis was done. I think with all of these different methods, all of these different databases, putting together all of these data and disparate parts, and these unconnected databases will be incredibly important to understanding how we can create more efficient, more sustainable and more nutritious food systems.   Abigail - Chris and Nicole, you both laid an amazing amount of work out on the table. And it's really exciting because it does seem like the field is inching closer to being able to connect some of those dots and do some triangulation on some areas where there's some uncertainty and data gaps. And so yeah, I do want to circle back around to this initial question that we posed, which is so what is the significance of this work collectively for policymaking? What does this data enable us to measure about fisheries and agriculture and what are some of the implications for making better policy?   Chris - I think one of the things to look at is the way that the aquaculture industry is really revolutionizing feed. We know that aquatic foods on average are so much more sustainable and have a much lighter environmental footprint than a vast array of different forms of animal source foods. So when we put it in that context, to think about the way in which feed products that go into agriculture, which is the dominant form of environmental impact for most of them and the way that they're being completely transformed by these interesting tech companies, to look at ways that we can use plant feeds with adopted or generated nutrient profiles that really improve the ultimate end product of nutrition. I think that that is something to definitely keep a lookout for, that will have incredible policy impact in terms of developing sustainable food systems.   And so one of the things that my team has been looking at is the degree to which fisheries management and specifically marine protected areas, could actually serve as a nutritional intervention. Conservation as a process could actually be not only a biodiversity and an environmental intervention, but also a public health intervention. And so the idea that a marine protected area could rehabilitate a fishery, provide spillover and increasing access to seafood to adjacent communities, is something that I think is so exciting to really reframe that mentally. And then to see if we can actually quantify the benefits of conservation to human health.   Abigail - And Chris does that serve as even an additional justification for fisheries conservation? Is it useful in that sense as well to kind of reframe these things like that?   Chris - I think so, absolutely. I think the degree to which we can think of all of these different sectors as serving multiple different purposes of the resource. And so to think of fisheries exclusively in an economic sense, really undermines so much of its true value and might lead to mismanagement from a fisheries management standpoint.   Abigail – Nicole, I want to turn it over to you and ask the same question. What types of policies do you think might emerge from a lot of the work in filling data and information gaps?   Nicole - I fully agree with what Chris just mentioned, and I think hopefully one of the major results of better data and information is that there's more integrated analysis across different policy domains, such as fisheries and nutrition. It would really allow for more coherence also across new policies. For example, these broader livelihood dimensions that are coming from the fisheries are really emerging and are valued. So by having this data, the fishery sector will really gain more recognition because currently we see often that it's overlooked, it's not taken into account even in food security and nutrition strategies in many countries. So by having more evidence about these values and these multiple functions of aquatic food within societies, this really should help better policy making and help to optimize the outcomes of these different policies that are playing together in a more coherent way.   There are a number of new global policy processes and policy instruments developing, taking aquatic foods more into consideration. One example are the Voluntary Guidelines for Food Systems and Nutrition. These Voluntary Guidelines were endorsed earlier this year and they specifically include aquatic foods. And we also see now in the preparations for the UN Food Systems Summit, that aquatic foods is entering more and more the preparatory process of this UN Food Systems Summit. They often call it blue foods instead of aquatic foods. But we see now that the attention is growing and that the number of informal dialogues and the number of events are organized around that theme because there is this recognition, that aquatic food is really part of the system and it generates all of these health benefits, which ultimately play out positively for society.   Sarah – And now one final question. What are you most excited about that's on the horizon for aquatic, or as Nicole said, blue foods?   Nicole - I'm excited about this increasing recognition of aquatic foods, beyond the fisheries policy domain. And one example, there's the UN, they just released for the first time a discussion paper specifically on the role of aquatic foods in sustainable healthy diets. I think that that is really quite important. This paper sets out a number of recommendations on how aquatic foods are part of the solution to really building resilient food systems and sustainable, healthy diets. There's one recommendation that specifically calls to democratize knowledge, data, and technologies, and to co-create meaningful knowledge and usable innovations. And that recognition of the role of data and information in this report, I think is quite powerful. And I hope that it will really kick off more work and more attention, and also the possibility to bring together all of the existing knowledge. Chris mentioned before, there are so many databases already out there, there's so much information, but this might be an opportunity to really connect all of these better and build analysis around it, that then can really be the evidence base for policy making in the future.   Chris - I completely agree with Nicole, this increasing recognition of fish and aquatic food products, it is incredibly important to elevate this recognition of how undervalued aquatic foods have been in the global food system. And one of the things I'm most excited about is not only raising the profile of that, but also integrating it and linking it directly into the terrestrial food system. We can't any longer deal with these two things as separate entities. There are enormous feedbacks in terms of the forage fish that are then used as fertilizer or feeds in terrestrial food systems, and the ways in which terrestrial food production, then leaches into affecting our rivers and lakes and coastal water systems. We can't think of these things as detached. We have to think of them as one integrative and holistic food system. Sarah - I wanted to mention, Chris, the paper that you noted is called Recognize Fish as Food in Policy Discourse and Development Funding.

Chris gives some small updates on working with Svelte. He really likes Svelte so far. Svelte's great. Modals are complicated. He also talks about using a little JavaScript library, called Quicklink. Steph talks about sending data to a third-party system and using feature flags to help deprecate some code. Finally, they both riff on a listener question on consulting. Said listener asked, "Do you think about your work as 'consulting first' or as 'building great software first and then good experiences for your clients will follow naturally?'" Find out their take and give us your own, here on this episode of 'The Bike Shed!' Bike Shed "Nate Berkopec" Episode (https://www.bikeshed.fm/296) Svelte (https://svelte.dev/) Quicklink (https://getquick.link/) Boring Rails: Skip the bullshit and ship fast (https://boringrails.com/) mtime (File) - APIdock (https://apidock.com/ruby/File/mtime/class) Transcript: STEPH: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Steph Viccari. CHRIS: And I'm Chris Toomey. STEPH: And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. So hey, Chris, happy Friday. How has your week been? CHRIS: Happy Friday. My week's been great, yeah. I've been writing a lot of code, moving things around, planning some features, and all that fun stuff that goes into building an app, so I'm enjoying that process. I'm also halfway through listening to your recent episode with Nate Berkopec, which was absolutely delightful, well, at least the first half that I've listened to so far. I assume the rest will continue to be absolutely delightful, but it does remain to be seen. So I'll report back next week when I've listened to the whole thing. But yeah, that's great. And I'm glad that Nate got to come on, and we got to share a little bit of his story as well. STEPH: I like how clear you are in terms of like, "The part that I've listened to so far is great, but I reserve judgment until I've heard the rest of it." [chuckles] But that's awesome. CHRIS: The thing about being a developer is it has broken my brain such that I am overly specific all the time because I just argue with a computer all day. It's what I do. So then I start talking to humans, and I'm like, wait, I should probably behave differently now. And I got to unwind some of those computer fights. But anyway, and let's see, small updates working with Svelte, really like Svelte. I'm leaning into it more and more and embracing...I think I'm starting to understand the aspects of it that I really like. And one of the things that I really like about it is that it is somewhat underpowered. And what I mean by that is working on React applications, I find that I can do some fancy stuff, and I can express it really well in TypeScript. And I can really go for it and create some components that are wildly variable and configurable and can take in any combination of props and do all sorts of things. And I can slice out tiny, little components and do all of this. When I'm doing that, I enjoy it. But in Svelte, I have a little bit less power in my control. Svelte is closer to HTML, CSS, and JavaScript fundamentally. So you can make components, and I really like that. You can bundle up the pieces of functionality and display and formatting, and all of that, but it's not quite as powerful. It's not quite as expressive. And I've actually found that to be a useful limitation, which is an interesting frame. It's not something that I thought I would say, but I'm finding that the code that I'm authoring in my editor is so much closer to the code that's actually going to be presented to the end-user. That is really useful in my mind. I find that to be really valuable. There are small things like in Svelte; you can actually say class equals when you're trying to define a class on an HTML element. It turns out I really like that one instead of having to say class name or similarly HTML for. There is a handful of them in React that you have to change the name of. So if you copy a snippet of HTML from the web, and then you dump it into your editor, if you're working in React, you have to change a bunch of stuff. It doesn't work right away. And it's a small thing, but I found that I really seem to care about it. But there's the “it's nice that it just works” version. But I feel like there's also an actually practical, meaningful edge of it is so much closer to the thing that's actually going to be in the browser, and I like that. STEPH: I liked the phrasing that you used just a moment ago where you said, "Useful limitation." Since I haven't used Svelte myself, one of my understandings is that you like the fact that it is that low JS in terms that we are introducing this framework, but it's not as heavy-handed as React or another framework that you could retour. But then you also said you're running up to areas where you feel like you're missing some stuff from React, is what I'm hearing. Is there a particular feature, or do you have a concrete example to help me understand some of the stuff that you are really missing? CHRIS: It's not so much that I feel like there are specific features missing, but as a pointed example, I am not able to pass in the DOM element that I would like the component to render as. That's a weird thing, but often, component libraries will do this. So you have a button component, but the button can render either as a literal HTML button element or an anchor element. And you can pass in as equals and then button as the string there. And in React, you can do that, and then you can actually do some type inference across it and say, "Okay, now the rest of the props that you can pass in are button props.” And if you pass in as equals a, so implying that you want it to be an anchor or a link, then it will constrain you to the link properties and say, "Oh, you must have a HREF now." That's really cool that you can do that. It's also super complicated, and the TypeScript representation of it, while it works, is very, very complicated and the types of errors that you get. The complexity of what you can build with React is really interesting. But I worry now that I've spent a good bit of time in Svelte, I worry if it's overpowered. I've worked on plenty of applications where the system as designed in React, all the set of different components is very, very complicated. And you sort of have to learn that system in order to be able to work in it, whereas in Svelte, you just start, and you're writing in HTML and CSS. And then, as you need more fancy stuff, you can slowly layer it in. And to be clear, Svelte definitely has plenty of power. This past week, actually, we were working on a modal component, but we were really focused on accessibility, which is probably a good thing that you should do, but it turns out modals are very hard to get right. The dialogue component that should exist in HTML is not complete, and it's not a thing that we can rely on. So we have to do certain things ourselves. So the idea of focus trapping when the model pops up, we need to say, oh, okay, the focus should be trapped inside of here, so you can tab forward and back, but it's going to stay within that modal component. There's actually a way that you're supposed to portal it. So you move it outside of the documents so that you can make the rest of the document...I want to say aria-hidden is the property, but you're basically saying the entire rest of the document that's behind this modal component should be inert to a screen reader essentially or invisible to a screen reader while the modal is up. And doing all of those sorts of things is super complicated. After you close the modal, you're supposed to refocus the button that opened it, the triggering element, and that's a tricky one where you have to pass down a reference to something. And that was all very expressive, actually, very straightforward in Svelte in a way that I was really impressed by. So it definitely has all the power that you need but not any more than what you need. Or there is a small line of it's just right. STEPH: So we should just scrap modals. That's one of the things that I'm hearing from you. So I just want to clarify because I do feel a little confused because in the beginning, it sounded like you were saying that Svelte is wonderful, but you do feel like you're missing a little bit of functionality there that you do receive with other frameworks like React. But then that last thing you said where “it's just right” sounds like it's the Goldilocks. So I'm a little confused as to exactly how you're feeling about Svelte in the moment. CHRIS: Yeah. I'm probably not being as clear as I should. I am a big fan of Svelte, so as the first answer, a big fan of Svelte. I'm recognizing that, strictly speaking, it is somewhat less powerful than React. But I'm also trying to say, perhaps failing at saying, but trying to say that I like that, that I'm finding its constraints are useful. React can do a ton of stuff. You can represent a real impressive array of component functionality and have components that take 17 different props that covary in different ways, and it's very complicated. And I've worked on plenty of React applications where I just have to stare very hard at the component library for a while. And I'm like, ugh, I still don't know how this works. And it's this custom bespoke language where Svelte feels like it is much closer to the thing that we're actually doing, which is rendering HTML and CSS and JavaScript and whatnot, and I like that. I'm finding that very useful. I'm finding that lack of power not to be a hindrance but, in fact, to be useful. STEPH: Hmm. Okay. I like that last part. Yeah, there are often times where I feel like the less powerful something is, even if it means a little extra work on my end but it's clear as to the work that's being done...I'm going to take it back a couple of years to when I was first learning Elixir because that's how I felt jumping from Ruby to Elixir and from Rails to Phoenix, where suddenly I felt like I had more clarity. There were some things that I had to do more on my own, but I felt more clarity as to what exactly was being done versus Ruby and Rails doing a lot on my behalf. So I can certainly relate to that. CHRIS: Yeah, I think that captures it well, that the expressive power of React can perhaps lead to somewhat more confusing code, and the small handful of cases where I need to be slightly more verbose in Svelte I actually find really useful. Like, Svelte is making sure that I'm writing components that are clear and easy to work with, but it still has all of the power that I need, and I can do everything I want in it. And yeah, overall, just yeah, Svelte's great. Modals are complicated. And that's my story. But yeah, that's a little bit of what's up with me. What's going on in your world? STEPH: Before we switch gears. I want to add on a little bit more to what you just said because something that I have noticed with me is that the longer that I've been a developer, the more I want that lower-level control and understanding as to what is happening. And it sounds like that is very much what you're saying that you're enjoying with Svelte is even if it does require a little more extra effort, that then at least I have that ability to exactly control what's happening versus if you're using higher-level obstructions, you're stuck with the API that's been designed for you. And that API works 98% of the time, that's wonderful but then that 2% of the time you're in trouble. So I've definitely noticed that trend, that over time, I want that lower-level control over everything that I'm working with and building, although not all the way to C, let's not go that far. CHRIS: I mean, there's Assembly underneath C. We can keep going, and we can just manually manipulate transistors as well if we really want to get after it. [laughs] STEPH: Next week on The Bike Shed. [laughs] CHRIS: Much, much higher level of abstractions are interesting to me, but yeah, there is a sweet spot. Svelte seems like it's the one for me. STEPH: Nice. So then switching back to what's new in my week, it's been a little bit of a weird week in terms of there's been a lot of focusing on sending data to a third-party system. So we had a lot of data that they needed in their system. So I have been focused on running a number of processes that are then sending that data over and then essentially babysitting processes, making sure everything is going smoothly. Also communicating with their team to understand okay, what's being received? Do we have any errors? Is there any sort of miscommunication between our systems, and that's why we're needing to resend this data to you? So it's been very different in terms that it wasn't a typical feature development week. It was more, hey, I sent you some data. What did you receive? And then let's fine-tune both of our systems on each end, which that part I always enjoy. As soon as I can get to that level of collaboration with someone, I very much enjoy that part because initially, it felt like a stressful task of like, hey, we've got this giant CSV. We need to process and send data. But then as soon as I have someone else to work with, then I'm like, yeah, okay, this is great. They can update their system. We can fine-tune ours as well in case there's something that's not communicating properly, and that part I really enjoy. I really enjoy collaborating with someone else so then we can both improve our systems together, so that part was a little different. But the actual weird thing that I did this week is we have feature flags, and we are using those feature flags to help us sunset and deprecate some code. So we have a controller path that is pretty gnarly. It is one of the more dense, difficult areas of our codebase to understand. And so we are refactoring it and creating a new green space for it so we can start to pull in some of that behavior and then also refactor as we go. So we essentially have class version one, and we now have class version two, which is always something. And we want to be able to feature flag this because, with our deployment workflow, we need the ability one; we want to be able to switch back quickly. So that way, if something goes awry, we can switch back to the original code if we've made some misassumption in our V2 version. And then we want to leave that on for a while to make sure things are running smoothly, and then we can go back and actually remove that class. But then the question came up is like, well, if we have these two files, how do we tell the team not to touch this particular file but only contribute or make a change to this other file? Because we have a sizeable team, and we work in different time zones. And there is a very reasonable answer that we communicate with the team that other folks are aware because they've seen the PR. There's a whole self-discipline of we review PRs and make sure stuff wasn't changed. All of that stuff is fine. It's reasonable. But I wanted to do something a little less reasonable [chuckles] that would still fail loudly in case someone changed a file. So the question was presented is there a way that we could fail loudly if someone changed this file? And there's a fun thing that we'll do at some of our daily syncs where someone will say, "That's a good idea. I have a bad idea." There's a fun thing that happens at our daily syncs where someone will often ask a question, and someone will provide an idea. And then someone else will say, "That's a good idea, but just to throw it out there, I have a bad idea. So let's just explore all of the ideas." And one of them was like, "Could we write a test around this? So if the file hash or something about that changed, then could we alert the team so then we know that this file changed and you're not supposed to change this file?" And essentially, having that discussion of like, well, then we're reimplementing Git because we're trying to track file changes. That seems like a bad idea but still a novel one to talk about for a few minutes. The implementation that I landed on and then shared with a person that's working on this is you do have the ability with Ruby, the file class itself; you can open a particular file. And for this one, select class one, and then you can use the function mtime, which returns the modification time for a file. So you can check the last time that a file was changed. So I wrote a test that says that "This file was last altered at…" and I grabbed that file's last altered at time with mtime. And then, I compared that to a particular DateTime. And then that DateTime could be any DateTime in the future once we deploy this class version two, so we don't expect that file to be altered. So this test will always pass until someone changes that file. And then Ruby is going to say, "Oh, your time is now greater than that other time you said." And so it's going to fail, which actually works pretty well. It's not as ugly as I thought it was going to be. [chuckles] As to whether it's a good thing to add to the codebase, I don't know, but it was a fun thing to write. CHRIS: I like it. I've definitely written things like that in the past, and I guess; therefore, I'm biased. [chuckles] I'm a fan of this sort of thing. But when you can take that group knowledge that is just shared in communication or via code review and you can capture it in the code, especially if you can do it in a stable, robust way…In particular, the first thing that comes to mind with that is like, well, are there going to be different representations of the timestamp on your system versus CI? Will that ever change over time? Like, Linux versus OS X or things like that. I actually have reached for Git in situations like this in the past. So, in particular, the one that I found myself doing a few times is trying to instrument code generation. So say we're working with Apollo, and we are generating the TypeScript types associated with a GraphQL request. I wanted to put something into CI to say, "If we haven't committed those changes," because we're supposed to be committing those files alongside, "then warn." And so the idea was take a snapshot of what things look like right now, run the command that does the code generation, and then check after that. I've done different versions where it's like, hey, Git, is the working directory dirty at this point? That's a version. I've also done one recently where I got the checksum of the file but again, asking Git. Because you're totally right that a lot of this...this is what Git does, and we don't want to rewrite Git. But I did feel okay reaching out and being like, "Hey, Git, can you help me understand the word?" But I like these sorts of things, particularly if you can do it in a way that won't ever require someone turning it off. I don't know if you've worked on projects where ESLint is enabled, but every third line has an eslint-disable-next-line. And it's just like, well, we have a bunch of rules, but we ignore them in a lot of cases. And those sort of...the like trust scenario with an automated tool I think is so important. If it's ever giving you false positives, false negatives, whichever it is, then it immediately, I think, loses so much of its utility. But if you can do it in a way that is stable and robust, then I am a huge fan. STEPH: Well, we'll see if the person decides to include it in their PR or not. But I do like that idea of where we can take away the idea that we're going to catch it if it changes in a PR because then we're just going to end up in a bad place that if we fix a bug in the class V1 but don't apply that to class V2, we're just going to be in a bad spot. And it's likely we'll forget about it when we go back to then delete class version one. There is something that you said that has reminded me of a very small change that I made to my process, but I feel like it had a big impact. And it's specific to working with feature flags, how often you'll have your tests where it's like if feature flag is on, this behavior should happen, if it's off, this behavior. And I often would wrap my test in the default path where the feature flag is off, and then I'd have my other if the feature flag is on; this is the behavior. But as we are migrating with the intent that this feature flag at some point in the near term future is going to always be on, so we know we're going to come back and remove all of the other code. I switched those two paths and treat the default happy path as the new if the feature flag is on; this is the new world. So then when folks are going back to say, "Okay, I just need to delete everything that represents when the feature flag is off," suddenly, it's just very easy to find that context to say, "Hey, feature flag is off and then boom, delete all of those tests." And that's been really nice. CHRIS: I really like that lens of designing or coding for deleteability. How easy is it to just rip this thing out? It's one of the things that I love about Tailwind, or one of the purported facets of Tailwind that makes it really nice is when you're looking at a given template, you can just rip it out. You don't have to worry about it because there's no associated CSS that you need to think about because the CSS is sort of generated available, whatever you want to call it with Tailwind. But I really like that idea of making it easy to delete stuff. Because it's so easy to just have your codebase slowly grow over time and look at files and be like, "I don't know if we're using that, but better to be safe." Cool. I'm excited to hear if that does land in the codebase and how folks respond to it. What did you phrase the message as? So if there's a test failure, did you give a particular like a special RSpec formatted message to be like, "Hey, friend, you're not supposed to touch this file. I know you're well-intentioned, but…" or is it just like, "Failure, bad. Mtime is different." Which end of the spectrum are we on there? STEPH: I love that you asked that question because I almost went down that path, and I was like, well, this should really have its own custom failure message because it's odd enough that I want to tell someone a little bit of a story when it fails. But I didn't because this was something that one; I just want to see if I could do. So I initially started looking at standard rb in RuboCop because at first, I was wondering if this was something I could solve via linting if it was something that RuboCop…if I could say, "Hey, RuboCop, if you notice that this file changed…" I didn't know if they had a hook into Git as they're looking for files to analyze. So I first leaned on RuboCop standard rb, which essentially then uses RuboCop under the hood, and I didn't find anything there. So then that's when I was like, okay, maybe Ruby has something, and that's when I found the file mtime. So at that point, once I'd gotten the test to pass, I'm like, you know, this is good. There's a very nice, friendly test description that goes along with if this fails; this is the reason why. But I do think that would be like cherry on the top addition to the test to have a very nice error message that goes along with this. So if I were the one that was adding this to the codebase, I would take a few more minutes to do that myself. It definitely felt like one of those moments where I had gone far enough into an experimental mode, and I felt like I had just reached that point where this is useful, and I want to share it with the person who's actually working on this. But then I pulled back going further because I'm like, I don't actually know if they want to use this and if they're going to implement it. So it felt like that right friendly balance of like, here's something that works. Feel free to use as is, make it better, don't use it, totally up to you. CHRIS: Yeah, I think given that context, that's definitely I feel like a good line to draw, not like, “Here's fully completed code that you can now just drop in. I did all the work, but here it is.” Versus like, “Oh, here's a kernel of an idea if you want, run with it, but if not...”But yeah, [chuckles] if you went to the length of writing a nice paragraph summary message to the end-user, that feels like you're really taking over the show. So cool. Well, yeah, interested again to hear how that goes and hear if it does, in fact, stop. That's the other thing. It's like, if it never actually fails, then everybody was just fine with the human process. But I'm intrigued to see how many times it actually does stop unwanted modifications of the file. So that's an interesting measure to track. STEPH: Yeah, that would be an interesting thing to track because if we do have it, then we may have less visibility into knowing if it failed because then someone will see it fail locally, but then we will have prevented it from getting to that PR state. It is one of those “did someone not change it because we added the test, or could we have skipped that process?” It feels like one of those nice safety measures, but that would be a fun thing to measure, I agree. CHRIS: Yeah, especially if it's a small change; in this case, I think it's totally worth it. But now, as I said it, I didn't mean it to be more of a thing. But now that I think about the question, I wonder if all tests should fail at some point. Like, all tests have a cost, both in terms of development and then thinking about them in runtime and all of that. And a good test is one that eventually fails because you change the system in a way that broke some constraint. And so, therefore, I'm now asking the question, like, should every test fail at some point? Are tests that only ever pass actually not that useful? I don't think so. Now there's a story running in the back of my head that's like, I kind of want to look at the CI stats. And feature specs will occasionally fail for unrelated reasons. But unit-level tests that never break, that never fail and catch something that was broken…I don't know that I actually believe this, but I'm just intrigued. As I asked the question, I was like, huh, should all tests fail? Sort of like one hand clapping kind of thing, anyway. STEPH: I like the question, or it's making me stop and think because my initial answer is yes, as long as it's failing for a meaningful reason, as long as it's not a flaky test or something along those lines. But otherwise, as you're working on the system and you're making changes, then I'm inclined to say that yes, every test should fail at some point. But I agree, if we're getting into existential test area, then I don't have concrete feelings about this yet. CHRIS: Yeah, and I feel like it's one of those sorts of questions. So pivoting off of that ever so slightly to bring us to something much more practical, I have a tiny utility that I want to chat about. And then I think we have a listener question that we want to discuss. But the utility, I think I brought this up on a previous Bike Shed episode, but the tool it's a little JavaScript library, but it's called Quicklink. And so the heading is instant next-page navigations. And so the way it works is it's just a little snippet of JavaScript that you'll include from a CDN, or you can NPM install it or any number of ways. But it's a tiny, little one kilobyte JavaScript thing that basically what it does is it attaches to every link on the page whenever you use that link. So you click on it or if you're on mobile if you tap, or however you're interacting with it, if it's an internal link, so not external to your site and not going to a different domain, but if it's internal to your domain, what it's going to do is it's actually going to prefetch in the background as you hover on that link. So it's going to say, "Hover is a good indication of intent to follow this link. So we're going to prefetch it in the background." And then when the user actually subsequently clicks it, which is often a couple of 100 milliseconds later, that's often enough time actually for the page to load in the background. And then, when they click the link, it almost feels like instant navigation. There's a similar thing that happens based on when you tap and when the actual firing of the link happens on mobile. So there's another delay that they can take advantage of there that's not quite the same as hover. But overall, it just takes basically any webpage, any website, and makes it feel very much faster. And it's cheap, easy, just kind of works. I really like it. It's a very interesting little project. STEPH: I'm fascinated by how that would feel as a user because if I'm hovering over a link, I'm thinking through my specific navigation habits. So if I'm going to a link, like, I don't hover very long. I don't think of myself as a hovering internet user. [laughs] I'm probably going to click on it right away. So I wonder if I would still feel that same speediness versus...yeah, I am interested in the metrics if they have something around like...I don't know why they would know this or have this, but like, most people hover for this long. And so then it speeds up their feeling of the page load. I'd be interested in that. CHRIS: I like the idea that you're bracketing yourself into the quickest click of a link in the west. I'm looking around on their website, seeing they have a quote from NewEgg at the top, which is, "We implemented Quicklink and saw a 50% increase in conversions and 4x faster page transitions." So it sounds like I'm reading an ad for this now, which I'm not because it's a free project. So you can use it or not and pay the $0. They have a demo, and then they have a measure page. So I think you can actually get to...I think they're just talking about how to measure it. But I've definitely seen another page where you can click on a link, and it will tell you what was the difference between hover and active when you actually interacted with it. And it turns out the bounding box for a link is bigger than what you see. And you're often moving your mouse not entirely to the center, but you're not just getting to the edge of it and clicking. And so that period of time where you're moving your mouse onto the link, there's actually often a couple of hundred milliseconds, which is enough to really make a difference if you've got a speedy site. You can take what feels like a couple of hundred milliseconds and turn it into nothing. STEPH: All I can think of right now is the image of a little mouse that's moving closer to a link with the Jaws' theme song playing. So it's ta-dum ta-dum. [vocalization] And this whole time, Quicklink is getting ready to then load as soon as the mouse reaches that perfect zone to then start loading. That's what I'm getting is Jaws and Quicklink. [laughs] CHRIS: I like the...it's not personification, but it's jawsification that you're doing of this JavaScript library where it's like, I just imagine them hovering on the side really watching intently. But on the sites that I've used it, it does make a noticeable difference. I feel the difference even with very active clicking. STEPH: That sounds really neat. I'll have to look into it. Maybe I think I'm the quickest click in the west. That's very hard to say. And it turns out that I'm actually quite slow, who knows? CHRIS: You might just be average; that's fine. STEPH: No way. CHRIS: Most people are, mathematically speaking at least. [laughter] STEPH: Not possible. I'm certain that I'm special. I hope listeners get a kick out of my oddities, [laughs] my very honest self that's coming through on the mic today. CHRIS: We're all a little special. But pivoting one more time… STEPH: That means no one's special. [laughs] CHRIS: Are you just doing the quote from Incredibles, or are you actually trying to say that? [laughs] STEPH: I wasn't intentionally quoting The Incredibles, but I did just watch that movie recently, and you're totally right. I am quoting The Incredibles. CHRIS: This is our second episode in a row then with a Pixar theme, which is always fun. But pivoting ever so slightly, I think our final pivot for the episode, we have a listener question today. So this question comes in from Matt Swanson, and he is asking about consulting first versus software first. So his question is, "One of the biggest turning points in my career was realizing that software consulting is, well, consulting. Do you think about your work as 'consulting first' or as building great software first and good experience for your clients will follow naturally?" So, Steph, what do you think? STEPH: I liked this question because it really made me stop and think about the differences in how I approach my client work. So I will say that I do think it varies slightly for each client, but most of the time, I do think of my work as first building great software. And then, once I've had time to understand how the team works and then identify opportunities for improvement, then I'll put on my consultant blazer and start scheduling meetings. I'm just kidding. I don't like meetings, so I don't do that part. But I do find that most of my engagements are looking for initially a strong developer to help contribute to the team and mentor. And then, I find that a lot of my consulting skills can then start to shine once I have that opportunity to build trust and then share outsider views with the team and then coach them in other directions. So I do take the approach of building great software first. Although this question really made me pause and think about it because I do think of the consulting and building software as so tightly coupled. It's a little hard for me to define when am I switching from my developer hat over to more of my consulting hat. CHRIS: Yeah, I think my initial reaction to the question was similar where I don't view these as two different modes that I'm fundamentally operating in. It's a continuum, or it's like a two by two grid thing, and I'm sort of moving around between the different spaces, but there's always a little bit of both. And I think if I were to answer the question directly, I would lean towards building great software. That's always the thing that I'm trying to do but often that requires some other more human-centric interactions. So having a difficult discussion around a feature and why we may not reach a deadline that we're going for or talking about ways in which the workflow is not necessarily going as well as it could, and we're ending up losing information along the way or different process things, all of that is a little bit removed from building great software. But at the same time, it's...actually, this is true of me now. I'm not technically a consultant anymore. I've stopped doing that, and I'm now full-time at an organization. And I'm not imagining my role changing fundamentally. I was consulting with them. I've now come on as a full-time employee, and I'm still viewing my work as very much the same thing. Maybe that's because I spent so long consulting that that's sort of the mode that I think of as how I work. But I think yeah, it's not necessarily two different modes. It's definitely a continuum that I'm operating across. STEPH: Yeah, I think that's why for me, it often varies. I like that word that you're using around how it's a continuum and that you're constantly sliding back and forth between one mode and the other. And if I think back to earlier days when I was working specifically with product teams before then, I joined thoughtbot and trying to think, well, what are some of the differences? How would I define what is more of my consulting mode versus then the building great software mode? Although I think the latter does encompass the consulting skills. But thinking back to when I was working on a product team, I found...and this may also just be because I was new in my career. But I found that I often referred to whoever was more senior on the team to handle a lot of those more human-centric topics, as you phrased it earlier. So if there was some communication that we needed to share in regards to why we were delayed on implementing a feature, if we needed to run a retro, if there were some meetings that needed to be scheduled, it always felt something like, oh, this leader of the team is going to take care of that. I am more in the development role, so I will do my job but then defer a lot of that to them. And then since joining thoughtbot with the way that we operate, I feel like I have more ownership in the process, and I want more ownership in the process. I want to be someone that is very aware of what are the specific goals that we're looking to reach? What are the deadlines? What's behind those deadlines that's encouraging us to push hard? And then also understanding how is the team functioning? What's something that we could do to improve the team's efficacy? Is the team happy? Are there areas there that we could improve? So I think for me, that is one of the core parts where I feel like I transitioned from being more focused on development to being more...you know, I don't have a great word for it. I often referred to it as being more of like a product owner. And since then, I feel like I have more ownership around the code that I'm working with and the team, and then the processes and the decisions for the product. But I actually don't have a great word that encompasses that sense of I want to be part of this and help make decisions and look out for everyone else that's around me. Does that resonate with you? Do you have any particular way that you would describe that or a word for it? CHRIS: I don't have a specific word for it. In my mind, this is just how we build software. But I think that that speaks to the culture that we grew up in as software developers. It's so strongly in our minds to think this way. A thing that we've talked about in the past is encouraging software developers to observe the sales demo, to see what it looks like when we're talking to end-users, or, similarly, to sit on customer support calls or listen to user interviews or things like that. And the reason for that is we want...I believe strongly that developers will do better work if they understand the context of the end-user of the application. But I think fundamentally, that sort of loads things up in someone's mind that might encourage them to push back or to suggest a different way of working down the road, and I think that's a good thing. I think every software developer should have some amount of that going on. And so that idea that consulting is this other thing that you sometimes do I feel like that stuff fits under the umbrella of consulting and, therefore, I think it's just part of how we build good software, but maybe it's a nomenclature thing, and I'm just thinking about it wrong. STEPH: Well, I want to pull at that thread a little bit because I was having that internal discussion with myself when I was thinking about this question is in regards to that being more aware of how the other teams are working to then help inform our decisions around the software that we're helping build, and implement advocating for a new process or advocating for how to build great software, is that consulting? I think you and I fall more into the camp of that's just how you build great software is; you have to be part of those decisions to be able to have more insights into the work that's being done. So I don't know if I could even really classify that as a consulting skill. CHRIS: Yeah, that matches my thinking. There is a distinction between consultant and contractor that I'll sometimes push on a little bit where I see consultants as being perhaps a bit more strategic and not necessarily being handed the work to do. I see that perhaps more on the contractor end. It's like, "We need a website built. Here are the specs. Here's the design mock-up. Please build it," and that's that. Versus a consultant being like, "We need a website, but we're not even sure exactly what that means. Can you help us think about the features and prioritize? Do we need a mobile app or not?" And a consultant potentially working more in that space of helping to determine what is the work that we're even going to do. But again, that's a question of like, how do we build good software? We have to answer those questions, and maybe not everyone on the team is always answering those questions. But the more people feel empowered to and feel like they've got the context to be able to make those sorts of at least suggestions around those sort of decisions, I think the better. STEPH: Yeah. I agree with the distinction in regards to being a consultant or a developer versus being a contractor because one definitely feels more removed from that decision or with that team collaboration process where you are more handed work, and then you implement that work, but you don't necessarily ask questions and be like, "Well, what are the benefits of adding this particular feature? Are we tracking to know that we've added the right thing?" those types of things that I would naturally include as part of my work. Versus if you're doing more of the contract work, then maybe you just implement and then don't ask those questions. Thinking back to then, what's different about being a consultant versus then doing development work…and I'm totally sidestepping all the financial stuff here. Like, if you're a consultant, then your world may be very different in terms of how you are acquiring jobs and then your marketing. So I am sidestepping that big conversation there but then focusing more on your day-to-day, how it may be different. And the times that I do feel that I'm wearing more of my lower-casey consulting hat is where I am joining teams that have a very specific goal that they have brought thoughtbot on to help with. So maybe there is a particular certification that they want their software to achieve, or maybe they're looking to level up their team and a particular tech stack, maybe it's Rails, maybe it's testing. And that one feels more focused on I am here to help provide an outsider opinion, to help evaluate your team, to help you provide advice, to communicate more with leadership that's on the team so then they know how things are going. That feels more like a consulting engagement that is less focused on building great software. But I feel like that often still starts with we want that stuff, but we also still want great software. So I always feel like I'm in both, and I really can't be as effective at the consulting part without actually working with the team and understanding the struggles that they're going through. So I still feel like they fit very hand in hand, but I do find that there are certain engagements that do require more external communication versus the others are often more internal with the team that I'm helping build software with. CHRIS: Well, I like that as a framing, the internal versus external communication and sort of the ratio of those. That's an interesting one. STEPH: To me, that's really what then sort of differentiates the consulting versus the just focused on building great software is if I'm doing more external communication, I'm focused less on the building part of the software but more on the guidance part. CHRIS: Yeah, I think that's a really good encapsulation or perhaps a way to differentiate the two ends of this. But I think both you and I probably feel that this just varies project to project. In some cases, we need more of what would fall into the consulting bucket, and other days, it's just nope, we got to go in. We got to implement. We got to build a bunch of features. We've got to get to the MVP launch and whatnot. And that often requires a little bit less on the consulting or the external communication side. But I think it's a case-by-case thing. And it's not that I think of myself as one or the other; it's I'll scale up or down as necessary based on the context of the situation. So I am both, I think. STEPH: Two for one, consulting and building great software. [laughs] CHRIS: One-stop shopping, everything you need. STEPH: So, I do have a couple of examples that I can provide that may provide some insight as to how we view consulting a little differently than necessarily focusing on implementation. I feel that I'm still reaching for that separation between consulting and developing. So I'm going to focus on the external communication and the implementation. I feel like those are the two areas that are trying to be divided in this particular question. But I do have some examples from thoughtbot discussions around consulting. So every so often, we get together at thoughtbot, and we have these internal discussions where we talk about the different consulting challenges that we have faced. And it's a really nice time where we get together, and we may discuss ongoing active consulting challenges and questions that we have, or it may be scenarios that have happened in the past. And so then we present that scenario to groups, and then we break off into smaller groups, and then everybody has an opportunity to talk through how they would react, what advice they would give, how they would approach it. And I have found those sessions to be incredibly helpful, but I think it could be fun to share some of those examples. Folks can think about them as to how they would react to them. But I think this helps highlight why those consulting skills and then also building great software are so tightly coupled together. So this first example focuses on building MVPs. So let's say that you're working with a client, and you've been focused on building an MVP, and the engagement is coming to a close in a few weeks. But the client is disappointed that there is a particular feature that they're really excited about that's not being included in the MVP, and they'd really like to know why that particular feature was cut. And they are worried that that will actually cause the business to fail if they don't have that feature in the MVP. So that's something that often comes up when we are focused on scoping MVPs to make sure that we are aligned with the client team to understand what is very important for the MVP and what can be a fast follow. And that can be a thorny one, especially if someone feels emotionally attached to a feature that is something that can be tricky to navigate. And how do you help the team reach a consensus that this feature really does need to be in the MVP, or it's okay that it doesn't need to go out now, and it can be in a future iteration? And for another example, this one is more focused on communicating the progress of particular work and how it's going. So you can imagine this scenario coming from the client saying that they have been working with you for a few weeks and you've made good progress, but it feels like the last week things have stalled. And they don't understand why a particular feature is taking longer than expected to ship. And they haven't had any communication from the team regarding what's taking that feature a longer time to get out. So, again, these are just some scenarios that you can think through and imagine how then you would respond or handle each of these situations. But I think both of those are really great examples that focus on the more consulting aspect of our work and then when we need to have more external communication with teams, so then they feel confident that we are developing great software. CHRIS: I think this is the first time that I've observed us giving homework to the listeners. But I think one thing that I'll highlight is we are talking about this in the context of consulting or being a consultant. But I think both of those examples that you gave, and more generally, most of these sort of conversations, actually apply pretty equally to working within an organization as an employee. You're still working on projects. You still have deadlines. You still need to ship things. You maybe aren't shipping as quickly as you need to; that maybe needs to get communicated to both internally within your team and externally within your larger organization. So yeah, I think these are broadly applicable, and I think, yeah, rolling them around in your head, let us know if you come up with any great solutions. STEPH: And if folks are interested in these types of scenarios, then I'm happy to share some more of them. I could share them on Twitter or anywhere else that folks find helpful. But I really like that nuance where I feel like is a nuanced discussion between building some great software and then those consulting skills. So thanks, Matt, for submitting such a great question. CHRIS: And as an aside, just to give a little more context on Matt, he runs a blog called the Boring Rails, which,, if you are not following it, it is a wonderful, straightforward summary of small, useful tidbits of information in the Rails world that are boring, but that's part of what we love about Rails. So I highly recommend that as well, and we'll include a link in the show notes. But yeah, thank you so much, Matt. And on that note, shall we wrap up? STEPH: Let's wrap up. Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. CHRIS: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPH: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or a review in iTunes as it helps other people find the show. CHRIS: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed on Twitter. And I'm @christoomey. STEPH: And I'm @SViccari. CHRIS: Or you can email us at hosts@bikeshed.fm. STEPH: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. All: Bye. Announcer: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success.

https://soundcloud.com/bobb-6 https://facebook.com/BoBBofficial Tracklist: 1. Rebelion - Modulate 2. Riiho - LAD 3. Regain & Insidiouz - No Survivors 4. Neroz - Artificial Kickdrop 5. Clockartz - Child Of The Devil 6. Day-Mar - Feel Terror Cloud Your Senses (Radical Redemption Remix) 7. Chris One & The Machine - Different Kind Of Therapy (Different Mix) 8. Sasha F & Rooler - Number 23 (Rooler's Ground Zero Edit) 9. Genox - Inhuman 2.0 10. Mrotek - Substance Abuse 11. Sledgehammers & TwoSixty - Dreadbeast 12. Psychopathics - Demolition 13. Delete - Shut The Mind Up 14. Ncrypta & Luminite - Transmission 2.0 15. Riot Shift - From The Grave 16. Imperatorz - Schizophrenia (2019 Edit) 17. Warface - Doom Slayer 18. Rebelion - Outta Control 19. Krowdexx Ft. Luca Lee Josh - Dungeon 20. Regain & I:Gor - Reptilians 21. Thorax - The Reckoning

What do underwear models, Frank Sinatra impersonators, and a partnership with Anheuser-Busch have to do with selling alcohol? For Saucey, it was about changing consumer behavior in an industry that hasn’t truly been disrupted since the 1930s.  Chris Vaughn is the founder and CEO of Saucey, an alcohol delivery service. Since launching in LA in 2014, Saucey has broken into 20 metro areas and has continued to grow.  Getting off the ground wasn’t easy, though, and on this episode of Up Next in Commerce, Chris takes us through the trials and tribulations of bringing Saucey into the market — from regulatory issues to investor and customer skepticism. Plus he explains how they pushed through the hardships and used edgy creativity to break into a market that was set on shutting them out.  Key Takeaways:   Bring On The Crazy Ideas: When working with smaller budgets, it’s critical to think outside the box with your marketing efforts. The money might not be there to do customer acquisition in traditional ways, so shifting to a scrappy mindset may be key. What partnerships can you form? What unique campaign can you launch that is outside of the traditional ones in your industry? Tune in to hear how Saucey generates new and noteworthy campaign and partnership ideas that generate results.  Disrupting An Undisrupted Industry: The alcohol industry has remained relatively the same since prohibition ended in 1933, mostly because of harsh regulatory guidelines and big brands owning most of the market. But, as buying behavior has moved online, enterprising companies like Saucey have capitalized on new opportunities. Why your first customer matters: Landing your first “name brand” client can make every future sale that much easier. Many companies got their start by being able to point to a well known first client, and seeming larger than they actually were. For an in-depth look at this episode, check out the full transcript below. Quotes have been edited for clarity and length. --- Up Next in Commerce is brought to you by Salesforce Commerce Cloud. Respond quickly to changing customer needs with flexible Ecommerce connected to marketing, sales, and service. Deliver intelligent commerce experiences your customers can trust, across every channel. Together, we’re ready for what’s next in commerce. Learn more at salesforce.com/commerce --- Transcript: Stephanie: Welcome to Up Next in Commerce. This is your host, Stephanie Postles. And today on the show we have Chris Vaughn, the CEO and Founder at Saucey. Chris, welcome. Chris: Thank you for having me. Stephanie: Yeah, I'm excited to have you. It might be 9:00 AM here, but I'm trying to get into the beverage mindset right now. Thinking about my 5:00 PM drink. Chris: Yeah. Nice, good. I like that. Stephanie: Yeah, I know. So Saucey, tell me a little bit about what it is and how you started it, the whole backstory. I want to know it all. Chris: Sure. So we started Saucey in late 2013. We really had this hypothesis that... I guess even before it was a hypothesis, we have this idea that you could have basically anything you wanted delivered, but for some reason you couldn't have alcohol delivered. In some major cities like New York, The Bodegas would run it over to you and whatnot, but for the most part in a city like LA, where we're based, that really wasn't an option. Found that to be really interesting, particularly given that the buying behavior around alcohol seems to be such an impulse driven buy. I know I'm going to have dinner tonight. I know I'm going to buy groceries at some point this week or next week, and delivery for those categories, mirror that behavior. Chris: Grocery delivery is more about saving me the time of shopping the whole store. Food delivery is this convenience driven thing. I know I'm going to have dinner, but it's kind of, "What do I feel like having?" And alcohol is this heavily impulse driven by where maybe I have dinner and it gets to be eight, nine o'clock at night, I'm watching a show or Netflix or whatever it may be. And I feel like having, some wine or I feel like having a cocktail, or beer, or whatever it is, or some friends are going to come over and they text me, "Hey, you want to get together?" And then and then you need to buy something. And so given that the buying behavior was so again, I think a non-planned purchase occasion we found that delivery would be the perfect fit for that type of purchase. Chris: So we started to look into the industry a little bit, and I think that the things that really opened my eyes was there clearly have been very, very little innovation in the alcohol industry really since [prohibition 00:02:32]. Most of the innovation had taken place on the brand side, creating new brands, new brand categories, but very little to do with how alcohol gets distributed or purchased. It was also fascinating to see that the brick and mortar landscape had effectively been built out to mirror that type of impulse driven buying. There's more liquor stores in the United States than grocery stores or gas stations. And that mirrors this behavior of, "Oh, I feel like having something." Run out to the corner and go get it. Chris: Then lastly, I think we clearly identified that there was a huge brand loyalty when it came to the products. I'm a Bulleit Bourbon drinker, I'm a Tito's vodka drinker. I'm a Coors Light drinker, whatever it may be, but almost no loyalty when it came to retail. Yeah, I'm on my way home. We'll stop here. I'm on my way to my friend's house I'll stop there. With the exception of some major holidays. Major holidays, go to Costco, stock-up or some of that type of buying. We found that delivery would be the ideal use case where we could not only capture more of a customer's purchases than any of the traditional brick and mortar players, but obviously service and provide a solution to this need of this impulse driven buying, or this last minute buying. Chris: We actually came up with the idea where... or how we came up about Saucey was I had floated it by a very close friend of mine at the time we were working at another company, and my girlfriend at the time, now wife with three kids we were camping up in Yosemite and we went up on this big hike, and I just couldn't get it out of my head. And I was talking through it with her and she was like, "I think you should do this." I came back and shared it with my close friend, and another close friend of this company called Text Plus where we were all working. Daniel Leeb, and Andrew Zeck. Andrew Zeck was one of their head mobile engineers, and ran their whole iOS team. Daniel Leeb was effectively leading their product of those teams. Chris: I said, "Listen, I think there's a big opportunity in alcohol delivery. And I think that the margins are there to support the business. It's a little brutal in food and some of these other categories, I think we can do it and alcohol, and here's what I think it could look like." Immediately we started working together. Nights and weekends spending a lot of time on the weekends and late into the night, trying to put this thing together. Dan did all these initial mocks of what it would look like. We didn't have the name Saucey at the time. We were trying to think of different names. Andrew was starting to program what the prototype would be, and we were working on doing all the specs. Chris: And then I was out trying to find who our first liquor store partner was going to be working with legal counsel and then subsequently talking to the ABC and some of the regulatory committees, or the regulatory bodies on, "We would like to do this. How do we do it, not only in compliance, but what are some of the issues you guys have in this industry, and how, as we're thinking about it, how can we maybe solve some of that stuff?" Like underage drinking, and be more proactive about ID verification, or there's cash under the table transactions, have everything go through credit cards. It was a fascinating time, we started working on that, I want to say October, November 2013, we really got our heads down and we launched in May 2014. Chris: Our first ever delivery. So remember Andrew dispatched it, Dan and I drove it. Was a bottle of Johnny Walker black label, to a guy named Vincent Rella who we actually ended up hiring, not that long after. Stephanie: Oh, that's great. Go Vincent. Chris: Yeah, it was interesting times. Stephanie: How did Vincent find you? First customer, did he actually find your app, or how did he even stumble upon you guys? Chris: I think Vinnie had loosely known Andrew. We all posted on Facebook, and we did all these things, and he saw the post and just said, "Oh, I'll try that." And then we ran the order to him and he goes, "Yeah, I know that guy." And then it was exciting. And of course those early days, we got one order, two orders in a day. And we did all the deliveries ourselves, taking turns on a schedule throughout the week, having to rotate who is going to be dispatching, who was going to be out delivering. An internal irony to the story was we wanted the service. We wanted to be able to order a bottle of wine, or a case of beer or something to your house, and so we built it. But what we actually ended up doing is just all of our time, seven days a week was out delivering to everybody else, and then we could never use it ourselves. So it was interesting. Stephanie: How it works. When you guys were doing that, any funny stories that you remember from when you were personally delivering, or doing the pickups and drop offs? Chris: Yeah, I mean, there was a lot of interesting stuff. I think- Stephanie: Here we go. Chris: ... we did probably a thousand orders between us before we started really hiring any outside couriers. At the time alcohol delivery was also very new, which I think is interesting. When you think about delivery as a category, food delivery has been around for decades, grocery delivery has been around for decades in one form or another, used to be able to call it the corner grocery store or place a fax order, and have things brought to you from your local market. Alcohol delivery in most major metros started six or seven years ago with us and a few others. And so it was a very new behavior. I think all the customers in the early days, the first additional hurdle, everyone was just asking, "Is this legal?" Everybody. Investors, customers, et cetera. Chris: We had to do a lot of work, both in our email content, as well as in our investor materials to walk through conversations we had had with the regulatory bodies, what the law says, how we think about these different things. So those early were just like, "Is this legal? I don't know, I'll try it sounds cool." Stephanie: Like sneaking out behind their bush, like, "Okay, drop off the goods." Chris: Exactly. And we'd show up in 25, 30 minutes and they were blown away, but we definitely had a couple of customers open their door, just totally nude, and totally unfazed. And you had to do a double take, and then, "Can I see your ID?" They'd walk back, come back, still totally naked, hand you their ID, you'd scan it and then turn over their order. That definitely happened more than once. Stephanie: Odd. Chris: People with unusual animals or pets. There was one customer that had like a snake wrapped around her arm. I remember one of those delivered, and was trying to hand it to her, and the snake's on her arm. And we were like, "Wow, this is some interesting stuff." But also lots of just, fairly standard and normal deliveries for the most part, people just super excited to use the service, and check out what it was all about. Stephanie: Yeah. That's really fun. So what kind of challenges did you run into when you were starting this, and working with these agencies and whatnot? Chris: Yeah. Licensing and working with licensed retailers is a challenge. The regulatory environment of alcohol being different on the state by state basis. So you're effectively dealing with 50 countries in the US, as opposed to having the rules all be the same. You can't ship alcohol across state lines, spirits and other things. So there's just a lot of barriers and a lot of reasons as to why Ecommerce has not taken place historically in alcohol, while fashion, and consumer electronics, and even cars and all these other things have picked up. Big followings in the Ecommerce world, set up at East Coast warehouse, a West Coast distribution center, take online orders, ship them out to everybody, and then optimize more distribution centers, see a faster delivery times. Chris: In alcohol, there is a whole series of barriers. One, that you mentioned is regulatory. You have to work with a licensed retailer, or get a license yourself. You're going to get a license yourself, and you don't previously have one that can be a very long and arduous process as to proving you are who you say you are, there's something in alcohol called the three tier system, which means you can only effectively be a manufacturer, a brand like Anheuser-Busch, a distributor like Southern & Wine Spirits, or Southern Glazer's, or a retailer. And if you're one, you can't be the other. So alcohol flows through about three to your system. There's some exceptions in wine, obviously, but it divides up the industry in many ways. Chris: There's many reasons why, I think even in like the private equity world there's been roll-ups of laundromats, there's been roll-ups of car washes. There's been roll-ups of grocery chains. There's been roll-ups basically any category you can think of. When it comes to alcohol, it can get pretty difficult because when you're trying to roll-up a bunch of liquor stores or roll-up a bunch of these licensed entities, these different regulatory bodies want to know every single person that has even a fractional amount of ownership. So you could have a PE firm, or a venture firm, all of a sudden being in a situation where they're having to go back to their LPs to get identification cards for people to list them on licenses. And so it's just a very challenging environment as to how people have been able to operate in this space. Chris: I think also because of the shipping regulations you had a lot of categories that were it's not as simple as setting it up and shipping. And then take that a step further when you think about fundraising, or capital, a lot of endowment funds, pension funds have carve-outs for things, like don't touch anything to do with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pornography. So there's entire institutions, or very large venture funds, or funds of funds that have invested in all these different VCs that in those early days just wouldn't touch alcohol as a category. So when you think about building a service in an Ecommerce space where you can't ship all over the place, that's a challenge. Everywhere you go you have to deal with licenses and/or different regulatory guidelines on a state by state basis. That's a challenge. Chris: When you're looking to raise capital, large sums of capital to go and attack this big problem. And there's a whole swarms of buckets of capital that literally can't touch the category. That's an uphill battle. And so most, I think the capital injections into the industry have usually been families that have come in, or you've seen someone's creating a brand. They usually do these friends and family rounds. But again, very little going into like a big marketplace, or very little venture or private equity money pouring into the space over the years. Some of the big challenges that we had was in all of those buckets. We launched in LA, but then dealing with even expanding into other cities, looking at the regulatory environment as you go into other markets, thinking about licenses and protecting our partners' licenses, and ensuring ID verification, the way that payments worked, worked properly. Chris: You just have to be very careful on the regulatory side and on the capital raising side, you have to be very resourceful in thinking about who your partners are going to be, and who you'd be able to raise capital from. I think some of that's changed now, particularly during COVID and the acceleration of a lot of things online, you're seeing all sorts of barriers, and regulatory guidelines be changed or altered in some ways to adapt to this new normal, and that includes capital as well. But back then, it was very much a little bit of a taboo service, and taboo marketplace that we had to raise money for. Stephanie: Yeah. I was just going to say, with all of those things you have to think about, and then you also have to think about building local marketplaces to find the drivers, and find the retailers, and the customers, how did you figure out which steps needed to come first without getting overwhelmed? Because that whole list that you just gave me, I'm like, "Oh, I would have given up, that's like very intense and I don't even know where to start." So how did you unravel that, and figure out, "Here's things that we want to focus on first?" Like, did you focus on the product, or the regulatory aspect, or did you like divide and conquer? Chris: We divided and conquered I think the way as founders, we've been extremely fortunate that we just work really well together. We still hang out together. We're still very close friends today. That's not always the case with people who have been working together for over six years this closely. But we couldn't find a better group of people to work with and just have inherent trust in each other as we're building this thing. A lot of my role in those early days was the regulatory, and compliance and working with the different regulatory bodies, legal councils and whatnot, and that really was gating factor one. You don't do that correctly, as we saw with other services, you could be shut down tomorrow, or your ops could be turned off, and then you could also have that stigma against your business. So you got turned off, you were a little blahzay about how you were thinking about the rules in a regulated environment. We had to be just above reproach when it came to that. Chris: Two, Dan, and Andrew were really focused on the product and engineering. And then when we put those things together, it was a definitely collective effort, but that also fell heavily on my plate as it related to capital raising. So Dan and Andrew in many ways we're running and setting up a lot of the operations and business product, the design, the roadmap, and I was out there bringing in the dollars, and making sure that we don't all get arrested. It was very good in the early days to be able to work that closely together. And obviously that's permeated throughout our, our journey over the years. I think yeah, we knew early on that it's a big opportunity in the space and that you'd have to be willing to take on a certain amount of brain damage if you were going to build something great here, and that's a bit of a moat. Chris: We've seen a lot of people dip their toe in alcohol, realize there's all these compliance things or whatnot, and just give up. We've I think over the years have developed a little bit of a specialty or become known as entrepreneurs as the guys that are willing to go through just crazy amounts of complexities and brain damage when other entrepreneurs maybe wouldn't take on those challenges, and love it or hate it, that's become our specialty to some degree. Stephanie: That's great. Tell me a little bit about some of your early marketing efforts. They looked pretty unique, and I was hoping you could touch on that and talk about how you acquired some of your early customers? Chris: Sure. The early days you had very small budgets. When we first launched, we were effectively bootstrapped and very shortly after launching had raised a small amount of money from an angel who was a terrific early believer in the company and maintained support throughout the years. But I mean, how do you make as much noise as possible with very small budgets? And we just had this approach of we're in the alcohol space. I think, our first thing we looked at was retail alcohol does marketing very poorly, or in a very boring way. If you look at how customers are adopting any type of brand or brand category or marketplace, usually there's a little bit of brand identity, or something you're trying to communicate to them. Chris: Retail alcohol's literally just, "Hey, we have Smirnoff, it's on sale. Come to me. Hey, I have SKYY vodka, it's on sale. Come to me." There's almost nothing... even if you look at the brand names and logos of most of the major alcohol retailers throughout the country, they're just like gimmicky whatever. We knew that we wanted to take more of the marketing style that takes place in the on-premise world — bars, restaurants, hospitality, leisure, et cetera — that I think translate some of these alcohol brands' vision to the customer very well, which is not, "Hey, come to our bar restaurant, hotel, whatever, because we have alcohol here." It's come here because it's a good time. And you'll be here with friends, and all these things that alcohol subtly sits in the background. Chris: We wanted to mere that type of approach over to the off premise world where it wasn't, "Hey, come here cause we have alcohol." Or, "Hey, we're alcohol delivery." Or, "Hey, get beer delivered." Or whatever maybe. It was trying to communicate fun and interesting messages, plans for people, different things they could do in their city. Wild and crazy activations that just got them excited, and just falling in love with the brand. And then subtly, by the way we deliver beer, wine, spirits, mixers, snacks, ice cream, all this type of stuff. So our activations really mirrored that philosophy of saying, "How are we going to deliver plans to people, or excitement to people?" Chris: One of our first big stunty activations, we partnered with a terrific company, LA company called MeUndies, which is the world's most comfortable underwear, and we just said, how do get a bunch of attention together, and do something that customers would love? And we came up with MeUndies underwear models, delivering sleepover packs that were pajamas and underwear, and a bottle of tequila, a bottle of wine or whatever it may be. It was male and female underwear pairs. Underwear models going out, and delivering. So anybody who ordered- Stephanie: Were they just in their underwear? Chris: They were just in their underwear, so you have anybody who ordered to have this female and male underwear model would come and show up at their house and deliver their sleepover pack. And we structured a great partnership together, rolled it out and we got just shy of a hundred million press impressions inside of a week, basically for free. Chris: We also did on Frank Sinatra's birthday in December, we partnered with the Sinatra family, Jack Daniels, and I believe it was Universal Music and anybody who ordered Jack Daniels, it would be delivered by a Sinatra impersonator. And they'd give you an LP and sing songs to you and do all this type of stuff. We did a handful of other really stunty activations. We took a page out of Uber's book. We delivered cuddly puppies, and donated proceeds to different animal charities and all sorts of stuff like that. Then we backed those types of campaigns with other things that we could afford at the time, which was we did a lot of door hanger campaigns. We did a lot of early stage for direct mail to 21 plus mailing lists. Chris: We did a lot of Facebook ads, Facebook native ads at the time. In the early days of any marketplace, you can acquire tons of customers on Facebook, relatively cheaply, and then your CAC start going up. So it's always a challenge to figure out as you saturate a channel, or saturate a market, how to change either how you're running the ads, or new ways to acquire customers or not be so dependent on one channel. But in the early days it was bracketed as deliver wild and crazy activations that get people talking about us. And then let's backfill that with a little bit more direct response media that maybe they heard about us from a friend because we did this crazy thing, and then they saw some Facebook, and then they saw us on their door. The combination of those things hitting people multiple times really drove a lot of that early adoption. Stephanie: Yeah. That's really, really fun. I love that story, is such a good idea and a good reminder to be creative in the early days and get the most bang for your buck. So what does your customer acquisition look like today, and how are you measuring that? Chris: It's a little different today running across a lot more channels, but I would say that a core tenent of our marketing has always been our referral program. We think that that's the best way that anybody's going to adopt a new service or product is hearing about it from a friend. And so we always push our referral program. It's always been our highest performing and fastest conversion customer acquisition channel that we do run ads across tons of different paid media channels. Obviously, the social, podcasts, radio, out-of-home, less so out of home right now for obvious reasons, and then we do a lot of partnerships with the big alcohol brands to drive awareness through some of their channels. We work with different influencers and then have started exploring some things like streaming, and whatnot. Chris: I think the most fascinating things that have happened on all these channels during COVID is obviously about 50% of somebody's alcohol purchases. It's usually fairly split between on premise and off premise. Bars, restaurants, stadiums, hotels, et cetera, over here. Grocery stores, alcohol delivery services, Ecommerce whatever over there, and half of those purchased venues effectively got turned off. So you had this influx of 50% of somebody's buying jump over to the other side, the off-premise buying behavior. And then you had people not wanting to go wait in lines and all this type of stuff. And so the search traffic went through the roof, time to first conversion shortened at rates that we had never seen before. We had higher intent, customers coming in, and just looking for alcohol delivery, "Is this even possible? Is it possible in my city?" Chris: We've been fortunate enough to have a great ops team that we've expanded dramatically, our footprint. We've launched dozens and dozens of new markets and cities over the past few months, been acquiring customers in all those new markets and cities. Partnering with terrific brands to help drive awareness and let people know that they can use the service. Then acquiring people at very different numbers than we've seen historically, an example would be when COVID really started to kick off, our Facebook customer acquisition costs dropped to about a 10th of what it's been for roughly six years. Time to first conversion, which share is usually around 14 days, someone downloads the app and they're waiting for that first use case. Chris: "Oh I feel like having that bottle of wine. Oh, I'm watching a show, I'll try ordering six pack of beer." Or whatever it is, dropped down to effectively a day. People were just searching for the service, found it, used it. And then second purchase happened before that 14 day mark as well. So you went from having time to first conversion be 14 to 20 days, and then it's all about getting to that second and third purchase. You had purchase one, purchase two, basically happening inside of that first purchase period of time. The customer acquisition costs on a lot of major channels dropped to a 10th of what they normally have been. Then we saw other people willing to spend a lot more media dollars. And then obviously when you think about marketing as well, so much of it is just how you cut through the noise. Chris: If you go back there's a lot of terrific documentaries on Netflix about history ad agencies and all this stuff, but there wasn't tons of marketing being thrown at people the way it is today, back in the fifties and sixties. And so a creative ad, like the Volkswagen think small, or something like that could just cut through everything and take over a nation. Today, it's very difficult. How do you come up with campaigns that cut through the noise that feel genuine that people respond well to? But when you had entire industries been negatively impacted by this pandemic and pull back, a lot of their marketing spend, a lot of that "marketing noise" had died down. And so if you were a service that was still operating the ability to just make sure the customers knew about you was in a heightened state than it had been in. Chris: So there's been a lot of changes over the past couple of months, both in terms of how we do marketing operations, and work with our customers. But yeah, we've obviously been very blessed by sheer dumb luck in this sense on being in a category that has been positively impacted as opposed to negatively impacted. Stephanie: Yeah. That's amazing. Very cool to hear about the time to first conversion and all that. How would you guide someone to create a marketing campaign that does stand out among the noise? Like even outside of a pandemic, and how to make sure it's authentic, but also unique. How do you guys even think about that when building your campaigns? Chris: Yeah, I mean, it sounds cliche. It's just put yourself in the customer's shoes. Be a customer for a day, go on to social media, take a drive around, look at the billboards, look at the signs. Look at the ads that are being served up to you. What's attractive? What do you like? What stands out? What feels cool? Having a barometer for just what I think really impacts somebody is important. And then translating that into your own campaigns is key. We've done most all of our stuff over the years in house. In terms of ad copy, and ad creative, and CRM, creative and copy, and all that type of stuff. But it's just putting yourself in the customer's shoes, what feels genuine, find brands that you really like what they're doing, and they feel honest and interesting and original, and they create interesting templates and guidelines. Chris: There is a creative agency called Gin Lane, which has since pivoted into creating their own products that built these templates for a whole bunch of companies, one being Hims & Hers, and a handful of other very well known brands today. But yeah, I mean, it's just what feels honest, what stands out, and do things that get people talking. It's fairly simple, but I think our barometer's just always been if you do what gets people talking, and is cool and genuine, then people will talk about it, and they will share with their friends. If you do something boring, or off-putting, who cares? Stephanie: Yeah. You'll be like everyone else. I love that. So with all the changes that have been happening, what updates did you have to make to your website, if any? Is there anything that you completely changed to try and... website or app either one, or like, this is a new user that's coming in, or now we have this new group that we need to focus on retaining who has never been here before. Any strategic updates or changes that you've made to your mobile or desktop presence that have really positively impacted like conversions and revenue and whatnot? Chris: Yeah. I mean, some of the initial stuff was very simple. It was just categories. So obviously coming into the app in those early days, people were looking for anything from wine, but also PPE equipment, and masks, and gloves, and hand sanitizer, and things like that. A lot of our stores and markets carried those things, toilet paper, paper towels, et cetera. Canned soup, frozen pizzas. So we've had that stuff for years, though a lot of people don't necessarily know it, but it was just making sure that that was very prominent in both our content marketing, as well as in the app and the website. So when people showed up they knew that that was available and they could use it. Then operationally, it was obviously it was getting out in front of a lot more people, so rapid expansion of our delivery footprint and neighborhood coverage throughout the country, so that more and more people could use us. Chris: Then obviously all the communication and work that went into little things operationally, like in certain States that require signature capture at the time of delivery, not just ID capture, but signature capture as well. Working with different people to get those signature capture requires lifted. So you could have more of a contactless delivery, it's not the same as delivering a sandwich where it can just be left at your door. You do have to see the person. You do have to visually identify them and scan their ID. But that can still happen in a contactless manner, where they just hold out their ID, you scan with the phone, and nobody's swapping goods or anything like that. So yeah, there's little things around COVID protection, primarily around contactless delivery, and ensuring a signature capture was waived in certain States. Chris: Showing more prominently categories of products that people were looking for, but particularly around stocking up or staying safe at home, or staying safe with PPE gear, putting up protocols to all of our retail partners on how they need to be picking and packing products and operating at retail. In some cases helping them source their own protective gear. Then yeah, on the site and in the communication email... I was recently speaking to somebody else about this, but we just had to basically torch all of our content marketing that was planned, where March was all March madness. We had tons of ad campaigns and things lined up for that going into different sports seasons, sports openers. All of that media and content pretty much could be very tone deaf if you just went as is. Chris: So all of our planned content marketing and even some of our campaigns and video shoots or photography, all those things, were basically just nixed it all and had to start from scratch on the marketing side. But the team there did a fantastic job. Stephanie: Yeah. It seems like there's so many things that were changing and you guys were able to act really quickly to pivot, and showcase the products that were already there and personalize it in a different way. Yeah, that's really awesome. What metrics are you looking at to measure success for your business? Chris: For us, alcohol's a little bit different than food. Food you eat every day, or dog walking was a big category. People that I remember early days, some of these venture guys, I don't think quite understood the category, not speaking about our investors, speaking about other people that we would pitch, and they ask things like, "Well, we saw this dog walking app and the retention is... they get used like nine times a month." Are people going to use your service nine times a month?" And it was like, well, I'd say, "Well, that dog is alive every day of the week, no? So if the dog is alive, it needs to be walked every day. Right? And if people are working then yeah, they need a service to walk the talk every day of the week that they're at work." Stephanie: Why are you comparing us? Chris: Yeah. Or even food you need to have food, and am I going to cook? Am I going to buy something at the store? Am I going to have it delivered? But when it came to alcohol, it's a little bit, I'd say roughly 15 to 20% of your customer base and in alcohol is really the people that drink a little bit more frequently, or several times a month. It's not as exaggerated as like sports betting or gambling where some instances we've seen platforms where 0.3% of the customer base is driving 70% of the revenue. And it's all about maintaining that 0.3%. In alcohol it's finding the people that enjoy the category, maybe have a wine in the evenings, or a couple of times a month or whatever it may be, and nailing that customer use case. Chris: Then we have other customer use cases where people just use for gifting, or people use us as their office for gifting all their employees, or having office happy hours, or having business orders. So it's really segmenting and cohorting all the different types of use cases, and customers that relate to this product. It's obviously a big space over a hundred... these are pre COVID numbers, but alcohol is roughly a little over $200 billion a year in sales, in the US. Roughly 55% off premise, 45% on premise. It's a big space, and it's all about finding obviously the people that use your category. I think as we think about just our marketing may change, or customer acquisition may change, or who the customer is, it's always just identifying those use cases. And some of those use cases have obviously changed right now. Where we're supporting more of that on-premise behavior. Zoom happy hours, people socially drink it with their friends, but from home. It's been interesting. Stephanie: Yeah. I really liked the idea of putting the users into cohorts based on why they're using the product. That's a really good point. The other big topic I wanted to talk about that could be probably a whole entire episode is all around partnerships. I want to hear what it's like partnering with these companies, like the industry that maybe hasn't really been online, the alcohol industry previously, what does that look like behind the scenes? How are you going about partnering with these companies right now? Chris: Yeah. Partnerships is a huge part of our business, both on the marketing side, as well as just how we operate as a company. We're a marketplace for the most part. We partner with existing retail locations where we'll partner with a store in a geographic area and then funnel all the volume and requests effectually to that store or a handful of stores in that area. So partnering with liquor stores and retail stores all throughout the country. And then we partner obviously with the Diageos, and Bacardis, and AB InBevs, and those guys of the world. When we first got started, the first ever brand partnership that we did was with Anheuser-Busch, and they actually reached out to us. It was this is this $200 billion market cap company. And I think they had just started their first digital team, which was less than half a dozen people up in a garage in Palo Alto. They called the beer garage. Chris: A guy by the name of Mike Raspatello reached out to me on LinkedIn and said, "Hey, I'm from Anheuser-Busch. We saw..." I think probably because of the MeUndie's campaign, "We saw what you guys are doing, and we want to have a conversation about how do we work together? We're trying to take on digital for the first time, and we're part of this beer garage." It get morphed into what later became ZX Ventures, which became like a venture team of theirs. And then is this big team now of hundreds of people over at Anheuser-Busch, back then it was mostly, I think Mike and a handful of people up in Palo Alto. He reached out, and he's like, "Yeah, we're talking to Instacart, we're talking to you guys, talking to one or two others." And we did a campaign where we promoted certain products in the category. [inaudible 00:39:47], and Stella Artois, and a handful of their portfolio products, and saw could you increase by featuring different brands? Could you increase their share of category? Chris: For them it was, "Our historical share of beer category is X at retail, in this new online world, how do we make sure that it is more than X?" And every brand has approached it that way. We are X percent of our categories in retail, how do we make sure in online we are more than X? We ran the campaign and did extremely well. Mike was absolutely instrumental in that, and terrific at Anheuser-Busch. He'd probably hate me for saying that, he's a hilarious guy who's in Chicago now and catch up with him. He's one of my favorite people, but yeah, we ran this campaign and they came back to us afterwards and they were like, "Man, you guys just worked so seamlessly with us. It went so smoothly it didn't go as smoothly with some other people. How big is your company? You guys got like four or 500 people?" And I think it was just Dan, Andrew and I at the time. I was like, yeah, totally. Totally we have 500 people. Stephanie: Huge backend helping us here. Chris: Exactly. I was hesitant to let them know, but I was like, "No, it's three of us right now, and a handful of couriers." And they were like, "What?" It was interesting in those early days, it was a little bit of fake it till you make it, in making us feel much bigger than we were in year one. That helped us get some of those very early partnerships. And then obviously as we started doing more and more creative stuff a lot of brands came knocking at our door. In many ways, outside of just promoting people in categories, or integrating them into our content, we did some big activations and made a lot of noise with different people. Like you saw with the Jack Daniels, and Sinatra impersonators and stuff like that. Chris: In many ways I think people started to treat us a little bit like a creative agency, they'd come to us to say, of course, we're going to do paid placement, but what else do crazy people come up with? We'd come up with all sorts of cool stuff for these brands. And in many ways we became like an outsourced agency that would help them with that stuff, or even help them with some of their Facebook spending. "Hey, we're currently with agency X running Facebook ads, they're telling me a customer acquisition cost of 137 bucks is fantastic. Is it fantastic?" We don't know, it sounds great to me. They have all these slides and whatnot, and we're like, "No, that's atrocious. That was absolutely terrible." Stephanie: Yeah. Oh man. Chris: "Let us help you figure this stuff out." So in the early days it was again, just being extremely helpful, but then sometimes that's not always scalable being very handholding and helpful with each brand. You can't translate that at our team size to every brand. And so it was coming up with a lot of templates and guidelines. Finding out what's effective. How do we translate what's effective to each brand? Today, our team on that front does a terrific job of still being able to come up with really creative and interesting campaigns with companies and execute on them. I think the biggest change that I've seen is in those early days, a lot of these... they're like institutions. These brands, or portfolio holdings are just huge, had very rigid brand guidelines. Chris: I remember working with a big very famous champagne brand, and effectively the model was they have a brand authenticity team that is just protecting everything related to that brand. And they spend months specking out what a campaign looks like for billboards, TV, all this stuff. And we were effectively just another channel to put that campaign into. And that just didn't work. We speak to our customers in a very unique way, and you take this billboard and then just put it in Saucey, and it looked very foreign. People recognize it as a foreign object, and don't respond well. And so the brands that earlier were able to say, "You guys know your customers better than we do. So we're going to give you relatively all the creative freedom to speak to them, with some approvals." Those were the people that performed the best, and those are the people that have continued to perform the best. Chris: I think the biggest change that I've seen is you've had a lot of these huge alcohol companies go from having zero person digital teams to having fully built out futures in digital teams. Then the biggest next step was those teams doing a fantastic job of working with senior leadership at those organizations to get them out of the more rigid guidelines around brand identity and being much more flexible in how they both think about campaigns, creative talking to people, et cetera. And that's been a huge shift for them. Stephanie: Yeah. I love that story, especially about Anheuser-Busch. And it's just a good story that highlights the importance of finding that first partner and really giving them, like you said, like a frictionless experience where they walk away like, "Wow, that was easy. I didn't really have to do anything. And the team just took care of it for me." Even if it semi kills you to begin with, like that doesn't have to be a for everything, but maybe first big fish, [inaudible] like, "Here's our partner." Is what can bring all the other partnerships your way. So yeah, such a great reminder. All right. I want to move into a lightning round, I know we don't have that much time left. So lightning round brought to you by our friends at Salesforce Commerce Cloud is where I will ask a question and you have a minute or less to answer. Chris, are you ready? Chris: I'm ready. Stephanie: All right. What is your drink of choice? Chris: I like Michter's Rye neat. Stephanie: On the rocks, or how do you make it? Chris: Just neat, Michter's Rye neat, is my favorite. Second favorite probably be Tito's Martini. After that probably jumping into beer or wine. Stephanie: All right. What's up next on your Netflix queue? Chris: I'm big into murder mysteries and prison documentaries and things like that. So probably something about international drug trade, or world's toughest prisons in Russia or something along those lines. Drives my wife absolutely crazy. Stephanie: Oh, man, that sounds very interesting. Also, our producer, Hilary said, "Neat means no ice, Steph." Got it. Thank you, Hilary. I apparently do not know alcohol, so that's on me. If you were to have a podcast, what would it be about, and who would your first guests be? Chris: I've thought about this a little bit. I think that I personally, when I was first starting working on businesses or trying to build a career, you see the end result of all these people, and you miss a lot of the details that got them to where they're at, or got them to how they think about the world and where they're at. Guy Raz, obviously, with How I Built This does a fantastic job of telling the idea of a company from start to finish. I'd love to even know the backstory before that of a lot of entrepreneurs. How did you get to the place where you wanted to jump off a cliff and start the company? You can have a little bit on the company, but really how did you shape what ultimately became this person that's willing to take risks, and do all these different things? Chris: I think to be totally honest, my first interview would probably be my co-founder, Dan Leeb. He has an unbelievably interesting story. I've that all sorts of twists and turns in life. He's one of the smartest people I've ever met. I would start a hundred businesses with that guy, and it would be an interesting one to listen to. Stephanie: Cool. That sounds good. I would definitely listen. And I love the story or founders stay together and stay friends because you always hear that not always being the case. So it's really fun hearing that. Yeah, you guys continue to be good friends to this day. That's awesome. The last one, what is your favorite piece of tech, or an app that's making you the most efficient right now with work? Chris: Just my phone. My phone, and these ear buds it's 90% of what's happening. Stephanie: All right. Chris: But yeah, I'm on the phone, most of the day, working with teams, video conferencing so these AirPods, or AirPod Pros with the noise canceling, that's a game changer. I got three little kids running around working from home, so we got a noisy household. So you got to be mobile and be able to communicate with everybody. Stephanie: Yup. I can relate with you there. And I almost forgot the hardest question that I need to ask you. What one thing will have the biggest impact on Ecommerce in the next year. How could I forget that one? Chris: I mean, outside of what's already happening with COVID, I think the biggest changes will be regulatory. We'll see what happens, but things like telehealth, or telemedicine, or even grocery, or even alcohol where you're seeing a lot of the legislation and regulations that have been sitting on the books for decades or 70, 80 years in many ways are all being revisited right now to adjust to this new normal. People have been trying to push for those legislative changes for years and years and years. And it's just been under the stack of papers, because, "Why is this so important?" Sort of, "Who cares, we'll get to it eventually." But you're seeing a lot of that accelerate right now. And I think a few big changes depending on what industry you're in, could really unlock an entirely new world for certain Ecommerce categories. Chris: So I think legislation driven by change of life, change of pandemic, I think will be very interesting to watch. And I think you'll see not only new categories come online, but the dramatic acceleration of some of the existing categories. Stephanie: Well, I love that. That's a great answer. I'm glad I remembered to ask that question. Well, Chris, this has been such a fun interview. Where can people learn more about you, and Saucey? Chris: You learn anything you need about Saucey at saucey.com. If you want to learn about me, I guess you'd listened to this podcast, go from there. I don't have a huge online presence, stay relatively private. But I think that, you want to learn more about Saucey, go saucey.com. Stephanie: Cool. Well, I like being exclusive source, so for all things, Chris Vaughn, you're welcome everyone. All right. Well, thanks so much for coming on the show. It's been great. Chris: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.  

Bree and Chris welcome lawyer well-being pioneer Anne Brafford to the podcast, best known for her roles as author of Positive Professionals, co-chair of the ABA Law Practice Division’s Attorney Well-Being Committee, editor-in-chief and co-author of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being’s report The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for Positive Change, author of the ABA’s widely distributed Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers and founder and principal organizer of Lawyer Well-Being Week, an annual event occurring every May. Transcript: CHRIS NEWBOLD:Welcome to the Path to Lawyer Well-Being, a podcast series sponsored by the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, where we talk to cool people doing awesome work in the lawyer well-being space. I'm here with my cohost, Bree Buchanan.BREE BUCHANAN:Hey, Chris.CHRIS:And we're here with really one of the pioneers in our well-being space. It is always, I think, an honor to be the first guest of any podcast series and we are obviously thrilled to have Anne Brafford here with us. Bree, do you want to go ahead and kind of do a quick introduction of Anne, a dear friend of ours and again, somebody who's been doing incredible work on behalf of our profession.BREE:Absolutely. I'm delighted to introduce Anne Brafford, Anne, who is somebody I admire and who I genuinely like and I know that whenever I'm going to have a conversation with Anne, I will do it with a smile on my face. So, that goes for this podcast today too. Anne, thanks so much for being here today.BREE:So, Anne, just a little bit about her background, she started out in big law and spent some time there and then made a pivot over the course of her career and ended up going to the University of Pennsylvania and pursuing a master's in applied positive psychology and I can't wait to hear Anne talk a little bit about what is this positive psychology business.BREE:She has been a very prolific writer. She has published a book entitled, Positive Professionals. She's also been very involved in the lawyer well-being movement and has been a pivotal person. She's somebody when I think about the work that the National Task Force has done. But for her, we would not be where we are truly. She stepped into the position of editor in chief for the National Task Force Report and took seven or eight writing groups, very disparate styles and pulled it all together and added all the research and really made the report in many ways the incredibly preeminent document on lawyer well-being. And so, we owe so much to her.BREE:She's gone on to produce the ABA's Well-Being Toolkit, which is an open source document that has been downloaded and used by thousands. So, I don't want to just take all the fun away, Anne. So, I want to give people an opportunity to hear from you.BREE:One question we're asking everybody that's our guest, tell us what brought you to the lawyer well-being space. When I look at your bio, I see that pivot from big law over to pursuing that master's. Tell us a little bit about that, if you would.ANNE BRAFFORD:Yeah, good question. And thanks so much for having me as the first guest on the new podcast. And Bree, I always love speaking with you. And it leaves a smile on my face as well. So, this should be fun.ANNE:So, how I got into well-being, it's a long story that I'll try to make short. But it started as far back as I wanted to be a lawyer since I was 11 years old. That's when I first started saying I wanted to be a lawyer. And unlike so many of us, my childhood dreams came true. I actually kept the dream up, went to law school, which was pretty odd because I was the first kid in my family to even go to college, let alone law school.ANNE:So, when I got my law degree, it was really just one of the happiest and most proudest days of my life. And then I got a judicial clerkship and then I got this great job at Morgan Lewis Equity Partner. It was like, on the outside, everything looked really successful, and it was. I was very proud of my accomplishments.ANNE:But as I began getting a little bit older, I started questioning whether this was all that there was. Was I kind of living up to my 11-year-old dreams of what it was to be a lawyer, which is sort of impossible to do. But I kept asking whether is this all that I'm going to do in my one short life.ANNE:And so, really, it began to be a deterioration of meaningfulness for me. I became a lawyer because I wanted to make the world a better place. And I was an employment lawyer. As an employment litigator on behalf of defendants and I never felt bad about what I did. I thought I was protecting a law that really meant a lot to me, but wasn't enough.ANNE:And eventually, I couldn't answer yes anymore. And so, I ended up applying to get a master's of applied positive psychology from Penn while I was still practicing law thinking I was going to fix myself or fix my culture. I was going to fix something, so I could stay because I wasn't leaving.ANNE:But as I got more into it, I just started feeling a pull that I could either stay in law and kind of do this other well-being stuff part time or I could leave and really potentially make a bigger contribution to the legal profession by helping to make it a place where people have a whole kind of variety of backgrounds and interests can stay and be happy and thrive.ANNE:And so, I made a really hard decision of leaving law in 2014. And I kind of liken it to it was like tearing my arm off. I mean, it was a really hard decision.BREE:I'm sure.ANNE:Yeah. And then I resigned from my partnership position in the firm and then almost immediately started my PhD program in organizational psychology, which I'm still in the middle of. And so now, I focus entirely on the legal profession. But the individual organizationally, institutionally have really helping to use science, apply science to help make the profession, help it live up to its potential to be a place where lawyers can really feel like they're doing something good for society and also thrive themselves. And so, I didn't really leave the law. I'm contributing to the law in a different way now.BREE:I love that you've verbed thriving. That's great, thriving.CHRIS:Yeah. And I think it would be helpful for our listeners to, you've now been for the better part of five, six years, but even before that, what would be your assessment of kind of what the current state of lawyer well-being is. We know that the report was released three or four years ago, right? We think that that was a significant catalyst and a national discussion. It feels like we've been making progress but I just be curious on your current assessment of where we're at and what you think is on the horizon in terms of where we need to go.ANNE:Yeah, good question. I think it's, for me, I feel like it's a really exciting time to be in this area right now. And I've had this conversation with Bree as well. I think people who have been doing well-being legal profession for a while are feeling like there's movement now. We're starting to make progress in a way that's really exciting.ANNE:And I do think the National Task Force's report that came out in 2017 was a catalyst for that, that there already was so much talk and action going on in kind of small cells and that the report then really catalyzed thinking organizations around this idea of well-being.ANNE:And now, I don't think you can talk to a firm or a lawyer who hasn't thought in some way about your well-being and that was not true. When I was growing up as an associate, well-being wasn't talked about really at all. And it was sort of considered, it's your problem not mine, where I think now organizations are getting more onboard and saying, this is really a team effort that we are responsible to each other for this.ANNE:So, I think that's great progress. I think we're still at the very beginning though. I think, well, where I'm hoping to see the evolution will go to is from this individual level, which is really where the movement is primarily focused now. So, things like stress relief, meditation, resilience, these more individually focused programs, nutrition, physical fitness. These are a lot of the things that I see that firms are doing and I see at least around and that's fantastic. It's a great place to start. And it's probably the easiest place to start.BREE:Right, absolutely.ANNE:But I think, yeah, the next part of our evolution needs to be more organizationally where and I think firms are starting ... They're sort of at the beginning of that now. I'm seeing this as more widescale culture change that if we really want to promote well-being, we have to seriously look at the cultures that are recreating the ill health that we're seeing in lawyers, like what about the way that law firms, and I come from a law firm background, but when I say law firms, I really mean all kinds of legal employers. But what are they doing and not doing to support well-being and seriously, looking at their policies and practices. And how can we change those.ANNE:And I think then we also need to evolve to more of an institutional level. Or people raise their eyebrows when I say it, but even things about how our court system is run, how judges treat lawyers, how clients, inhouse clients treat their outside lawyers and how the outside lawyers treat their clients.ANNE:I was a litigator myself thinking about the judges, and multiple times and judges deny lawyers' request to move something because they had a vacation or they weren't feeling well, or judges just being disrespectful. And lawyers sometimes being disrespectful to judges as well.ANNE:But I do think it's an institutional wide challenge of how can we rethink our system so that lawyers can still be their best and do their best for their clients, but also be well themselves. And I think we've made great progress, but we have a long way to go.BREE:No kidding. Yeah. And I also talk a lot about the fact that it's not just individual lawyers that we're trying to get to change the way they go about their work, but it's the culture change, and that's really hard. And so, I know that when we were writing the report, there was discussion about what are sort of the levers of the legal system that we can push to try and bring about some shifts to this, and particularly around, you've talked about with legal employers. And I know that you currently go out and speak to major law firms on these topics and what they can do differently. Can you give us some examples of what a law firm, a midsize or large law firm could do to bring about some culture change so that well-being is prioritized?ANNE:Yeah, I think the first place for organizations to start, and I actually think it might be the number one recommendation the National Task Force Report, number one or number two, but it's about leaders. And I truly believe this. And my book that you mentioned when you're introducing me, Positive Professionals, that's really what it's focused on, leaders and law firms.ANNE:And by leaders, I mean, partners and anyone who is responsible for supporting and influencing others. And I think a lot of partners don't actually think of themselves as leaders if they don't have a formal leadership position, but they really are because they have such an impact on other people.ANNE:And the organizational science part of this shows that leaders really are the creators of culture. They are the most important lever when we talk about creating cultures and changing cultures. And so, often when I talk to firms, what I'm talking about is focused on partners and how they interact with associates. So, many of our firms, although this is changing, but many of our firms have not thought about doing any kind of sort of leadership development with their aspiring partners and their current partners. And so, we think there's many partners that want to be better, want to do better, but just have never had the skills, tools or training to do so.ANNE:And I so I think that is the first place to start of really talking to the partners about how their own kind of supervisory skills, but also with their role modeling to the associates and to not just associates, the staff and everyone around them that you can come out with the best well-being policy and your professional development people and your well-being director can have really good words to say. But if the partners aren't doing it, that's what everyone else is going to follow because they're what staff and associates and all the other lawyers, they want to do well. And so, they look to the partners to know what that looks like.ANNE:So, if say they see partners that are not sleeping themselves, that are typing emails in the middle of the night, that aren't taking vacation, that are rude to others, like that's the pattern that they're going to follow.BREE:Absolutely.ANNE:And so, it's one of the things that I always underscore when I'm talking to partners is that everyone is watching you very closely. The higher you get up into an organizational hierarchy, the more people are watching you, both for what is the value system here and what do you think of me.BREE:Right.ANNE:And so, although you might not think of yourself as any different, oh, I'm still the same Anne Brafford, I just have a new partner title, like nope, you're actually different because people are treating you differently, and your behavior has a much bigger impact on them both for their own well-being and for them watching what's valued.ANNE:And so, I think there are other levers, but I think that one is so important and such a challenge, that that's where we should just be focusing for a while.CHRIS:Anne, are you optimistic that the cultural elements that position those leaders to move the profession forward is going in the right direction, the wrong direction or there's generational things that are in play, right? There's societal factors in play. It certainly feels like there's more willingness for folks to be vulnerable, which is a probably a driver that could be really helpful in culture shifts within the professions. I'm just kind of curious on your outlook of how optimistic are you? And what do you think are the kind of the underlying drivers that could either accelerate or hinder our ability to engineer this shift?ANNE:I think I'm always optimistic.CHRIS:We know that of you.ANNE:But I would say that my experience is that organizations are still all over the map. I would say like the ABA has come out with a wonderful ABA Well-Being Pledge, where many organizations, especially law firms have signed up saying that they're going to really commit themselves to lawyer well-being.ANNE:And I would say, even within that group who have made a public commitment, they're all over the map, that some of them, it's nice window dressing, but everyone else is doing it. So, we need to do it to show that we care about well-being.ANNE:There's others that I would say really are trying to figure this out. So, I think that at least now they're interested and asking questions, even the ones that just have it as window dressing, that's progress. It's better than what it was before. Once you start making public statements about your commitment, you're much more likely to start taking action because people are going to start questioning you. And you also want to be consistent with your public statements.ANNE:So, I think I am optimistic, but I think there are many obstacles to getting to where we want to go. Just our billable hour system, which is going to take a really long time to change, is everyone knows it's a problem. I don't know that you could find a single law firm leader that says they like the billable hour structure, but just no one has found a way to change it yet.BREE:Anne, I think that you're a heretic for saying that, I mean. I mean, to go ahead and call it out, I get up and talk. And I usually don't do this in a big room because I'm just afraid what's going to happen but really, if I can get around to it, the billable hours, the 800, 8,000 pound gorilla in the room until we have some shift with that, it's going to be a hard time to really change culture.ANNE:It is and I'm with you. I don't often talk about it in large rooms. I talk about it in small rooms, but I will also say that the science on it, on number of hours worked is really interesting. So, there was a big study in 2014 led by Larry Krieger on what makes lawyers happy? Let's stop talking about only what makes them sad. So, what makes lawyers happy.ANNE:And their study found that number of hours alone was not related to well-being or happiness, but billable hours work were. The more that billable hours rose, the less happy that people became. So, you could have two lawyers working the same number of hours but have different levels of happiness based on whether one felt like they were doing it freely and autonomously because it was their own choice versus feeling like they were forced to because of billable hours.ANNE:So, there's this idea of a basic human need that we have is autonomy. And it supports intrinsic motivation, like am I doing this because I enjoy it, because it's my choice to be doing it. And it's highly related to happiness and energy and all sorts of well-being that we care about. And so, it's not just that.ANNE:I think when people think about billable hours, it's often, oh, because we're being overworked. And yes, there is a lot of overwork in the profession. That's absolutely true. But there's also it's just harmful cultures that it's [crosstalk 00:19:04] worst.BREE:Yeah. What are you billing your time doing, which can be really mind numbing and it gets back to that meaning piece.ANNE:Yeah. And do I feel like I'm just making up hours because I have to. Am I having to find work when I really need to go take a job just because I need billable hours rather than because I'm so engaged in what I'm doing. So, I think billable hours is a challenge for a number of problems. But firms tend to be extremely competitive. And when you get to the partnership level, the way compensation works, there's all kinds of issues. I think the billable hours is just kind of the tip of the iceberg. But I do think there are a number of the ways that have just been standard practice within the legal profession that are posing obstacles that they're going to be hard to change, but again, I'm ready remain optimistic. It's just not going to happen overnight.BREE:Yeah, and I just want to commend everybody, the study that Anne just mentioned, it's called What Makes Lawyers Happy by Professor Larry Krieger, and it's really a great piece of work and maybe we can get Larry on the podcast.CHRIS:Yeah. It's probably a good time to take a quick break here from one of our sponsors. What a great conversation. And again, thank you for being here. Let's take a quick break and we'll be right back. —Your law firm is worth protecting. And so is your time. ALPS has the quickest application for legal malpractice insurance out there. Apply, see rates and bind coverage – all in about 20 minutes. Being a lawyer is hard. Our new online app is easy. Apply now at applyonline.alpsnet.com—BREE:Welcome back, everybody. We have Anne Brafford with us today, who is the founder and owner of Aspire and also has been a pivotal leader in the National Task Force and lawyer well-being movement across the country. And one of the things we're going to talk about with Anne in this part of the presentation is about her pivotal role as being a founder of Lawyer Well-Being Week.BREE:And Chris is going to talk to her about that in just a minute but Anne, really one of the reasons I wanted you to be our first guest is that you can really speak to a foundational component of our work, which is how we defined well-being. And in fact, I remember when we were writing, you, as the editor in chief, kept pulling us back to, okay, we need to define these terms. We need to substantiate what we're saying with data and studies and all of the 200 plus whatever footnotes that were in the report and really tying us back to science. So, could you talk a little bit about how we came about to define lawyer well-being? What does that mean?ANNE:Yes, so this was set out in the report. We had a couple of pages of just saying, okay, we're all wanting to talk about lawyer well-being, let's talk about what we mean. And I need to give a shout out to Courtney Wylie and Patrick Krill, the three of us are the ones who really did the research and debated with each other and then offered it up, proposed it to the whole National Task Force for acceptance.ANNE:But what we did initially was to look at what other organizations were doing, both like corporate organizations and also organizations like the World Health Organization and other large organizations and how they were defining well-being and how they were approaching it.ANNE:And the first thing that was obvious is that this was a multidimensional concept. It's not binary, you're well, you're not well. It's a continuum and has lots of different dimensions. And the other thing that the World Health Organization agreed with, thankfully, was that it was, well-being isn't just the absence of illness. It's also the presence of full well-being.ANNE:And Bree, you'll recall that I wasn't only harping about the evidence, I also was always wanting to remind us to not only focus on the absence of illness in our report. And understandably, that's where a lot of people tend to focus because that's important of when people's lives are really being harmed and ruined by alcohol use disorders and mental health. You want to focus there on just helping those people get better.ANNE:But there's so many lawyers in the profession that although they don't have a diagnosable illness, they're not fully well. And so, we wanted to capture the full continuum of well-being and all of lawyers no matter kind of where they were in the continuum. And so, that's how we define well-being of really making sure the first thing we noted is just like the World Health Organization, we are defining this to mean both sides of this, curing illness and also promoting full well-being and then the multidimensional concept of this involves both mental health, intellectual health, physical health, of all the different areas of our lives. These work synergy synergistically to make us fully well.ANNE:And then when you look at one of the big dimensions that is important to lawyers, all of them are, but it's occupational health. As lawyers, are we fully well and we define that. And that's an area where I have focused more on lately, like what do we really mean? And how do we measure it? And is it just again, like so many people will focus on things like burnout or depression, but what else is it?ANNE:If we're looking at optimal functioning, what we want to look at is yes, we want the absence of illness, but we also want things like engagement, job satisfaction, high performance, low turnover intentions, like people who actually want to stay and thrive here.ANNE:So, I think even just getting into each dimension, there's more that we need to understand and figure out how to measure so that we know whether we're making progress or not. But that's basically the gist.CHRIS:One of the pages that I'll refer to our listeners to is page nine of the report, which I think has just a wonderful graphic of the holistic dimensions that I think you cite, the emotional well-being, the occupational well-being, intellectual, spiritual, physical, social. And I'm curious and just because of how much scientific research that you've done in your work on the occupational side, you've done some work as part of your master's program on building the positive law firm. And what does some of the research kind of say out there with respect to that part of the well-being definition that I think that you're spending considerable amount of time really waiting into?ANNE:Yeah, so my master's capstone was on building the positive law firm. And then that was further expanded in my book, Positive Professionals. And there's a lot of dimensions to that. The first thing I already covered, which is the importance of good leaders because they create culture.ANNE:I think that one of the other things that it's so important in the legal profession that gets missed is that working hard isn't the problem. That people who are highly engaged and love their work, they work hard and they work a lot of hours, but failing to take time to recover, that's when the wheels can start coming off.ANNE:And so, I don't think that there's so much focus on lawyers work too hard. I think we should just turn it and say lawyers need to recover. Good lawyers are going to work hard. Anyone who loves what they do and are passionate about what they do are going to work a lot of hours. But thinking about how we recover and there's a whole body of research just on what are the best ways to recover.ANNE:And I talk about it a little bit in my book, but it's things like just sitting on a sofa and watching TV is not actually the best way to recover and actually conserve energy. So, one of the best things for lawyers, people who are very cognitively invested in their work, so lots of brain power, one of the best ways to recover is actually physical activity. It's very engaging. It makes your mind come off your work. And also, just physical movement is really good for both our brains and our bodies.ANNE:And the disengagement from work is a really important component of recovery, of finding something that will engage your attention. So, thinking about what are called mastery activities, so art, music, sewing, knitting, anything that will fully absorb your attention is a really good and important activity for recovery because it helps you disconnect a little bit from work and also has other sorts of great benefits.ANNE:And I don't think we can talk about recovery without talking about the importance of sleep, which I do think is a challenge. When I was a lawyer at my firm, it was honestly like people would sort of be competitive about how little sleep they have had for the week. And that's toxic. Those kinds of things have to change.BREE:Yeah, and I talk about that when I go out and speak to new lawyers and just talking to them about the importance of sleep and how everything that you need to do as a lawyer is not going to be online if you're not sleeping and there's no honor in bragging about being powered by Red Bull. You're not going to get the best work product.ANNE:I was one of those people, like I'm embarrassed by some of the things. Guys, if you would know me back then, some of the things that came out of my mouth ... I was one of those people. So, I totally get it. It is hard to change. I'm still recovering on that whole sleep is good sort of thing. And I read all the science, like I'm absolutely convinced, but there's just this draw of I have to get more done. So, sleep is a really important thing to work on in our organizational cultures.CHRIS:Let's spend a couple of minutes in talking about something that in your capacity as a leader of the ABA's Law Practice Division's Attorney Well-Being committee, you kind of hatched an idea knowing that we needed to continue to keep this issue front and center and that was Lawyer Well-Being Week, which we just enjoyed.CHRIS:Anne, I just love your perspective on why you felt like that week was so important to sustain awareness of this particular issue, what will you ultimately learn from Lawyer Well-Being Week in terms of the amount of activity, which I think was enormous and encouraging and why it's so important that we continue to keep this issue front and center?ANNE:Yeah, so, Lawyer Well-Being Week had been on my mind for several years and very excited that it finally came together. And there were a number of reasons why I thought it was important. One was that there were so many people that wanted to contribute in some way but didn't know how. And so, I wanted to create one event that was big enough and diverse enough for a lot of different people to contribute.ANNE:And then second is just what you said, Chris, of keeping attention this important topic that we've all seen kind of fads come and go in the legal profession that something is there's so much energy and attention around it for a couple of years and then we move on to the next thing.ANNE:And this well-being just can't be one of those things. We have to sustain this lawyer. Well-being is too important for it just become another fad. And so, creating an annual event to really focus attention around the idea, keep attention on it, create a time and space for more innovation, discussion around it, firms get to see what other firms are doing just based on social media and by communicating with each other.ANNE:And so, we had the first Well-Being Week was just this last May. Unexpectedly, we had a global pandemic occur. And we had to pivot pretty quickly. Firms and other organizations have been planning some really cool in-person events that hopefully they'll still be able to do next year, but everything had to go remote.ANNE:And I will say I was pretty disappointed. A lot of people were pretty disappointed. But in the end, I think the silver lining was that people were even more open to the idea of needing to care about well-being in the middle of this really difficult time.ANNE:So, although we couldn't do a lot of the programming that we wanted, it may have even been better in that people were so much more open to this message than they might otherwise have been. And so, there was lots of engagement involvement by bar associations, law firms, in-house departments because I think everyone has become interested in well-being but also they were looking for stuff to get out to their lawyers during this time that they knew a lot of people were struggling.ANNE:And I do hope it continues to be absolutely raising awareness. But I also really emphasize innovation of really thinking about how do we move this forward. The meditation sessions and resilience sessions are really important, but how can we push Lawyer Well-Being Week to get organizations to think more culturally and institutionally as well.ANNE:And I've gotten very positive feedback about it. And so, we're hoping that it continues and that it will be an annual event for many years and that we just keep making it better and better and find even better ways to serve the profession.BREE:Absolutely. And it's definitely a priority for the National Task Force for 2021. So, let's hope we can get together and enjoy that in person.BREE:Anne, because you're really are, and I mean this, and it's complimentary, but I really mean it, you are a visionary and a thought leader in the space. And so, I'm going to push you a little bit to think about how do we know that lawyer well-being is done? It's fixed. We can check that box. I mean, when we sat in the room, the original founders in 2016, we talked about that this is a project that will take at least 10 years because we had a sense that it was a really a lot of heavy lifting. But we didn't really break it down to what would the world look like?CHRIS:Yeah. What does success look like?BREE:Yeah, right, Chris, what does success look like in the lawyer well-being?CHRIS:You're a metrics person, too, so, this is even better.ANNE:Yeah. So, I actually think those were two different questions. And I think what does success look like is a different question than when will we be done, because I don't think we'll ever be done.CHRIS:That's right.ANNE:Because the profession will continue to evolve. The world will continue to evolve. People's values will continue to evolve. And so, what lawyer well-being means and how we get there will be a forever project.ANNE:But the urgency that created the National Task Force Report had a lot to do with ill being, which was the statistics that got all of our attention on the level of alcohol use disorders and mental health disorders. And so, alleviating that I think is job one.ANNE:And how do we know that we've succeeded? I've thought a lot about that just with respect to Lawyer Well-Being Week, how do we know we succeeded. And I think like one, more simple one is, have we raised awareness about the importance of this issue? And how would we measure that.ANNE:But then, have we decrease the incidence of alcohol use disorders and raised the incidence of people's willingness to seek help? And I think no organization yet has been doing broad scale regular surveying to measure that, for a lot of reasons.ANNE:But I do think like that those would be the kinds of measures that I would want to look at first because those are the things that are potentially ruining people's lives. And these aren't mutually exclusive. But then also looking at the more thriving aspects of well-being or do we have high job satisfaction, high engagement? Do people feel that their work is meaningful? Those kinds of things which there's measures for all of that.ANNE:So, I think those things are hard to get out. That's costly to do all those things. But I do think that's how I would measure it. But I don't want to undermine the importance of our people realizing that this is important, like have we got people's attention. And I think, on that score, we've made incredible progress.CHRIS:Yeah.ANNE:Whether we've made a dent yet in alcohol use disorders and mental health, I'm not sure but we have to have that first level of awareness before we get to the next and then next, are we getting to full thriving, are organizational cultures fixed or institution? I'm not sure what those measures are yet, but I think that's a longer way off.CHRIS:Yeah, the full thriving I think is really an interesting component because again, the opportunity for folks to pursue a legal career and find personal and professional satisfaction, so many of I think of our colleagues ultimately will find that they may have made a wrong decision.CHRIS:And one of the questions that I ask oftentimes when I get up the podium at a regional or a state bar gathering is, would you recommend that if your son or daughter or one of their close friends came to you and said, "Should I go to law school?" That generally the answer is a little startling of a lot of people saying no. And to me, that says something about the systemic nature of problems that people can't maybe find what they are actually looking for or there's a false sense of expectation on what they thought it would be like, versus what it ultimately is.ANNE:Yeah, I think it's all those things. Even though I've left law, I would actually say yes, go to law school. There are so many great things about being a lawyer, but also stay true to the reason that you're going to law school.ANNE:That Larry Krieger, who we mentioned earlier has done on work on the evolution of values for law students throughout law school. And what he finds is that law school culture is channeled lawyers toward, well, the brightest and best go to the big firms. And that's great. There are lots of great opportunities at big firms and if that's the right fit, do that.ANNE:But there are other people like maybe me, that when I had a different value system but I wanted to do what the best kids were doing.CHRIS:Yeah.ANNE:And so, I was actually going to be a prosecutor and was looking for internships with prosecutor's offices, and a professor came to me and said, "What are you doing? You have good grades, you should go to a big firm." And I'm like, "Why would I do that?" I said, "That's not what I wanted to do when I came to law school." And he said, "You can always go from a big firm to a prosecutor's office, but you can't do the reverse. So, just go try it."ANNE:And so, I did. And I got into employment law, which I really liked, it was super interesting. And then you just get carried away with like, whatever the next thing is, I'm going to get that, I'm an achiever like so many lawyers are.ANNE:So, I do think like, yes, be a lawyer. There are so many great things about being a lawyer. It's super interesting work. You can make a positive impact, but stay in the right lane. Do what you think you'll love in 20 years and not just what seems prestigious right now.CHRIS:Yeah. Well, Anne, in our last question that I wanted to pose to you is one of the things that we're so excited about is the growing army of folks who are passionate about this issue. And this podcast was developed for those particular folks who are leading state task forces, working on subcommittees at the state and local level. Just be curious on your words of wisdom as you get to kind of address an army of well-being advocates across the country, any thoughts about just this fight, this culture shift, any recommendations or motivational words to really an incredible growing number of people who are passionate about this issue?ANNE:Well, get involved in Lawyer Well-Being Week. And part of resilience is anticipating failure along the way and figuring out when you face those failures, what are the 10 or 20 different ways that you're going to get around those obstacles?ANNE:And I think that that doesn't sound very inspiring, expect failure. I think it's absolutely important to the cause that we're undertaking because there are so many obstacles. But it's so important. So, expect that this is a long road. Things aren't going to change tomorrow and really think about what those obstacles are. And when you have a failure, don't feel like a failure, that think of the 20 different ways that you can get around whatever that obstacle is.ANNE:And that's how I've approached it, that when I have a door closed or hear a no, I'm going different ways to get to my yes, maybe not as easily as or as quickly as I wanted. But this is a long game, this isn't a short game. And so, just keep at it and really engage, get connected with people who feel as passionate as you do so that we can all help keep our energy up.BREE:I want to point out to everybody, we've been talking about Lawyer Well-Being Week and if you want to learn more about that, go to the National Task Force website, which is lawyerwellbeing.net. And all of the information, the great materials and worksheets and ideas for well-being is still up there. And it's applicable throughout the year. And so, I'm hoping people will use that.CHRIS:Anne, thank you so much again for your leadership, for your inspiration, for taking risks in your personal life to become a leader in our movement, for the work that you're doing on the science side of well-being. I mean, we are truly fortunate to have you amongst us and being a leader in our movement. So, thank you for being our first podcast guest.BREE:Thank you.CHRIS:Really cool. And we will be back with the Path to Lawyer Well-Being podcast in a couple weeks. Again, our goal is to do probably two a month, where we'll bring more great guests like Anne into the fold and talk about specific areas of lawyer well-being. So, for me, signing off. Bree, any final closing thoughts?BREE:Just a delight to get to spend time with you, Anne, as always. Thanks so much.ANNE:Yeah. Thanks for having me.CHRIS:All right. Thank you. 

Welcome back to the Quiet Light podcast. Chris Wozniak is the newest member of our team and we thought it would be a great idea to sit down and chat with him. He has built, bought, and sold online businesses, in addition to brick and mortar brokerage firms. Chris has more experience than anyone on our team and we are excited to have him on board. Tune in to hear us talk with Chris about what buyers and sellers should do to come out on top.   Topics: An abbreviated version of Chris' work history. Earning a CBI after becoming a board certified broker. Chris' buy-side brokering experience. Potentially creating short films about clients. Tips for sellers. How he leads buyers through the process. Why Chris spends time with and coaches buyers.  Transcription: Mark: I'm really excited to announce that we have a new member to our team, Chris Wozniak. Now you hear Wozniak and we think Steve Wozniak from Apple, is there any relation? Did you ask him that? I know you talked to him this week and that would have been my first question, how is he related to Steve Wozniak? Joe: I did and I'm not going to tell you the answer. Mark: So we don't know. Joe:    I know. I asked the question. Mark: Then I'm going to listen. Joe:    All right. Mark: You have to listen to the pod. You got to listen. Joe: How many shares of Apple he actually owns and whether he inherited them or bought them? Mark: Oh, there's a bit of a tease right there. Joe: All sorts of tease. Mark: Chris Wozniak, the guy, he's new on our team but he's; Chris is new on our team but he's not a greenhorn by any means. Joe: Not at all. He's got more experience than anybody that's ever joined our team before. I think he comes to the table with more experience. He's built, he's bought, he's sold his own online businesses, and he's run two brick and mortar business brokerage firms and sold one of them as well. His top year is probably selling 15 million dollars worth of businesses. The guy's just ridiculously qualified. He's got all sorts of certifications behind his name in his LinkedIn profile. We talked about that; jokes about that quite a bit, actually. But it's not just talking about him and his experience. I asked him a lot of questions about what sellers should do, what buyers should do throughout the entire process of building a business to eventually exit or looking to buy a business, and then build it so he gives lots of advice throughout. Mark: Well, let's go. I'm excited to introduce him to our listeners, and I'm really excited to get him as a part of the Quiet Light team. Joe: Oh, and there's one thing that we do tease something that's coming in the future at Quiet Light and Chris is helping us bring that to the table. It's something people have been asking for for years. We talked about it briefly, so be sure to listen in to that as well. Joe: Hey, folks Joe Valley here with Quiet Light Brokerage, and today I have the Woz with us. How are you doing today? Chris: I'm doing good Joe. How are you doing? Joe: Good. How many Apple shares do you own? Chris: None. Joe: None? Grandfathered in by uncle… Chris: None and we've never really investigated it either so maybe we do. I don't know. Joe: So you're not… Chris: I knew that I wouldn't work as hard as I do. Joe: You're not a descendant then of the great Wozniak? Chris: I have to be a descendant. I just don't know how far down the line that stretches. Joe: You know, I actually have a client now who is the; we were having just a casual conversation and he said, hey, you want an interesting fact? I'm actually the great, great, great, great-nephew of Teddy Roosevelt. And when he told me, I was like, that's an odd Segway into telling me this, but I've repeated that story and now it is interesting. I find it fascinating that we… Chris: Oh yeah, everybody does. Yeah. Joe: Even with what's going on in the world and some folks wanting to take down the Teddy Roosevelt statue outside of the museum, but yeah, fascinating. So, no relation the Steve Wozniak of the world? Chris: I honestly don't know. Joe: Okay, enough with the jibber-jabber, folks. This is the real Chris Wozniak, the newest member of the Quiet Light Brokerage team, a ton of experience, but I'm going to let him talk about it. I've got your LinkedIn profile open here but why don't you talk to us, tell the folks listening, Chris, about your background and how you ended up coming to Quiet Light. Chris: Sure. Well, first, I want to say that I'm not used to podcasts and I got an email from Joe yesterday saying, hey, just be ready at eight in the morning tomorrow and give your entire professional life history. So I said, okay that sounds like fun. So this is going to be off the cuff and obviously coming from the heart. But yeah do you want the long kind of version of my… Joe: I think people want the shorter version. Chris: Okay, that's going to be hard to do but the short version of the long story is I graduated college. I was in commercial real estate for several years, even in college as an intern. Then I joined my dad as a business broker. We had a company called Lesdon & Associates that was in 2002, 2003. Joe: Brick and mortar business broker or online business broker? Chris: Mainly Main Street brick and mortar which we graduated to smaller deals and we had initially started and graduated to larger and larger deals, we eventually sold Lesdon & Associates, I think in 2008, 2009. And then we started The George Ryan Group, which was a company focused on lower middle-market businesses. And so what we define that as is anything over a million dollars and then we never had an engagement over 12 or 13 million. So we own that company and going backwards in 2002, I started my first e-commerce business. Joe: That's a long time ago. Chris: Yeah. Joe: 18 years ago. How much did the website cost you? I love the answers to this question. Chris: I had to hire somebody to create and code it for me. I had the idea of what I wanted to sell; the product line, which was actually non-precious gemstones in 14-carat gold settings. Joe: Wow. Chris: So kind of a very niche-y product. But anyway, we built that for I think $5,500, $6,500. Joe: Wow. That's a lot of dough. I ask the question just because I like to say mine was $50. Chris: Oh yeah. I guess then there is no Shopify, there is no platform that you could just point click. Joe: No. No Amazon fulfiller accounts, very different. Chris: Yeah. Joe: Okay. Chris: So I sold that. I sold the e-commerce site about a year and a half later and did pretty good with. It was 22, 23 years old so it was a big chunk of money for me and my wife. And so fast forward, I've been selling businesses for 17 years. Some of those are online businesses, but through the years I've created and run and sold online businesses of my own. And so I guess five years ago or about six years ago, my wife and I decided we wanted to get out of the United States and kind of change our pace of life. And the only way I was going to be able to do that was to be able to have some type of income where I could do business brokerage because of the situation. So we ended up moving to St. Croix in the US Virgin Islands. We were there for two years. And so winging it for about a year and a half to two years leading up to that move, I created an Amazon FBA business. And when we got to St. Croix, I purchased with a partner an affiliate business in the finance niche. Joe: So just to be specific here folks, Chris, has built, bought, and sold his own online businesses. Okay, go on. Chris: Yeah, and then I've also created and still own several content sites and still own my Amazon FBA business as well. Joe: Okay, as I look at your LinkedIn profile, you've got a lot of acronyms here M&AMI, CBI, all sorts of different things, BCB. You come to us with things that I think most of the team does not have. Chuck is now certified in some way and these certifications folks are normally designated for a local brick and mortar business brokers. There's no specific certification for online business brokers. Walker's got some as well. Specifically, I think he got it prior to writing the book that you all hear us talk about, which is Buy Then Build. But what are some of these credentials that you have, Chris? Chris: Board Certified Broker is a designation that's awarded by the state of Texas. I earned that I don't remember when; maybe 2006, 2007. I've also got a CBI, which is the Certified Business Intermediary. That's awarded by the International Business Brokers Association. I got that shortly after my board-certified broker designation. And then I also carry the Merger & Acquisition Master Intermediary designation. That's the M&AMI given by the Merger and Acquisition source, which is kind of a sister program to the International Business Brokers Association. And to maintain that designation it's pretty difficult. I don't know now how many there are throughout the United States, but at the time there was maybe between 100 and 150, I believe. I don't know if that's still true or not, but it's difficult to achieve that designation because you have to have done a deal over a million dollars and then you had to maintain that. You have to do a deal over a million dollars at least once a year and believe it or not, in our world, Quiet Light's world, and my world that doesn't seem like a lot. But in general; in brokerage in general, that's tough to do. Joe: Yeah. So, folks, if you haven't visited the Quiet Light website lately, you'll see that it is new next time you go visit it. And it says right there on the homepage, sell your online business with a team that has a crazy amount of been there, done that experience. And obviously, the Woz here, QLB's Woz. We have three Chris's now so his email is actually Woz@QuietLightBrokerage.com because he has that experience. Chris: By the way, I had to clarify to the team because Joe introduced me as, hey, check this guy's email out. He's our new member, Woz@QuietLightBrokerage so I immediately; my first reach out to the entire team, all the other brokers was guys I'm not trying to be cool with Woz. There's already two Chris's. I didn't want to get anybody confused with the other two Chris's. My name is too difficult to spell in its entirety so I went with Woz for simplicity purposes only, not to be cool. Joe: You're cool by default just because the email address is accepted. But you do have a crazy amount of been there, done that experience, but let's segue way to one of the reasons why you are on the team amongst all of the others. And buyers and sellers this is important for you to understand in terms of one of the things that we're going to do at Quiet Light in the coming months. We're launching this podcast sometime in the month of July 2020. And you've got, Chris, some buy-side brokering experience. For the last decade or more we've had requests for buy-side services and we've always said, no, we don't do that. Because of your experience with it and experience with a close friend of mine that you worked with we're going to move in a direction where we're going to offer this. Don't start sending us e-mails here folks. We will announce it. We'll give you the details. We're going to start with a small pilot program and make sure that we serve you properly. And we will not be helping you buy businesses that are listed by other business brokers. These will be unlisted businesses that we will search and find for you, given the criteria that you're looking for. But what made you go into or get pulled into the buy-side part of the brokering Chris? Chris: Yeah, that's the right way to say it. I kind of got pulled in to it wasn't necessarily a proactive decision on my part to get into it. There was demand there for it and so I just tried to get that demand and service those people that needed that service. So we had buyers that we're looking at online businesses, we had buyers that were looking for any type of service business, we had buyers that were specifically looking for manufacturing, all these things over the years and so we just developed the process on trying to uncover businesses that were not on the market, which is that's the kind of grassroots kind of guerrilla effort that we use to uncover these types of businesses. Joe: Yeah, and it's an exciting one for us because it's one that everybody's constantly been asking for and sort of pulling us in that direction. But with Chris's experience, the vast amount of experience that he has here we formulated a plan, we're starting to put it into action and we will test it out in the coming months. And we will make an announcement both via the website, email address, this podcast again, and an official, probably podcast specific to the buy-side brokering and what services we'll be offering. So keep that in mind for the future, and we're excited about it for sure. So, Chris, with your experience, I'm going to ask you random questions because you've been doing this for so long. As everybody knows, Mark and I don't script these. We're just flying by the seat of our pants here and hopefully, it gets across good information to you folks. Let's talk to the sellers out there in the audience, in your experience; the vast amount of experience that you have, what are the top one or two things that a seller should understand about a business that they own, and a path toward exiting that business? And when I say understand, I mean understand and do. Chris: Understand and do, yeah. Well, I think something that kind of gets overlooked when we're speaking with sellers and trying to coach them and advise them is they should know that it's going to be an emotional experience because of the nature of what it is we're about to do, which is the biggest transaction in their life. It's bigger than purchasing your home. It's bigger than the most expensive car or boat you're going to buy or sell. And so this transaction is going to be a monumental change and it's going to be an emotional ride because they typically have some blood, sweat, and tears poured into this business and a lot of times it's their baby. So to not address that when you're speaking with them, because they may not realize they're going to go through these different waves of emotions, that's why a lot of times I know you've talked about it, too, and I've said it a million times, we're just as much psychologist or therapist as we are advisors because it's 100% going to happen that there's going to be these waves of emotion and anxiety and things of that nature that happen. And so I think if the sellers just know that and we can kind of tell them what to expect a little bit and why they're probably going to be feeling this way and why it's natural and why everybody else goes through it too, that I think helps ease that burden a little bit. Joe: Yeah, I think that's a huge one. I was reading some content that's being created now that describes what we do and it said something like entrepreneur, advisor, broker, mentor, friend to online business owners and become all of those things and the friend part at the end because we spent a lot of time with clients. And I'm sure you've experienced that, especially if you've been working with somebody that lived in the same hometown as you or a neighboring area where you actually get to see them more. In our situation with the online world, we get to see them now with Zoom and we see them at conferences and things of that nature, but not as much. So the business folks know the name Joe Cocker, and if they've been listening to the podcast and I've been talking to Joe for two and a half years, I've never met him face to face. I sold his business in Q1, we had him on the podcast. He told a story. This is somebody, folks, that his first child, two days after his 17th birthday, he was in high school working full time and still graduated high school; hustled, worked hard, sold his car. This is the title of the podcast, he sold his car to buy inventory and then sold his business for seven figures. That was the process, a hell of a story. But, you know, I consider Joe a friend, even though I've never met him face to face. I can't wait till COVID goes away so I can get down to Florida, go visit with him and go fishing because he's got a new boat and he goes fishing all the time. And he's very, very good at it apparently. But that's a big part of it. And one of the things that you're going to see, folks, is a new series that Chris Moore actually has been working are called Quiet Giant and we are sharing some experiences with our clients and doing a quarterly short film, if you will, about them. And the second one is already produced and one of the things that the person featured in that series said was just reiterating what you said, Chris, which is at times the advisor mentor, broker, friend is a therapist because whether it's 250,000, a million, quarter of a million, or ten million that you are two weeks away from and you're negotiating the asset purchase agreement and it goes off the rails because it will. And the difference between a good and great advisor is that the great must get it back on track towards closing. But you are going to be in a very emotional state and if you all can see Chris on YouTube, he's very calm and collected. And obviously, I'm not hyper myself, the tone of my voice is this is about as excited as I get some time. So we're here to support, advise, and help and sometimes that comes across in therapeutic sessions if you will. And we've all been there and done that so we know. When we were selling, we're in the same situation, right? You've done it dozens and dozens of times with clients as well. Chris: Yeah. I sold a non-durable medical equipment company that was one of my largest sales of my career in 2014 for right around ten million dollars. And I shouldn't say the name of the business, but I'll say the first name of the seller's name is Ralph. And he actually reached out to me on LinkedIn a month and a half ago just to see. He saw my name and it kind of; I don't know why it popped up or how it came into his point of view, but he reached out and said hey, how are you doing? And I mean, we spent a lot of months getting his business marketing and getting it sold and we developed just a great relationship. And he's just one of honestly a ton of sellers that I've had that we still maintain relationships and we get along great. And that's one of the things I love about the business. It's transactional, but it's very intimate and there's so much at stake that you bond. Joe: Yeah. Chris: Or it's almost you just bond. Joe: Yeah, one of the things I like least about the business is the stigma of being a quote-unquote broker. But once I got over that and realized and became that entrepreneur, advisor, broker, mentor, therapist, friend, it is what we are. And those that want to put a label on us as just a broker, they can just go somewhere else. Chris: You know all those letters we were talking about earlier. Joe: Yeah. Chris: I probably got those because of insecurity. Joe: Right. I'm incredibly secure because I don't have any of those letters. Chris: Right, exactly. Joe: No, you're just lazy. Chris: I'm the most insecure, yeah. Joe: All right, let's talk. We're going to keep this episode relatively short, folks, just simply because you don't want to learn too much about Chris until you get to know him personally. But let's talk about some things though that buyers can do. One of the things that sellers can do is prepare themselves emotionally. Well, actually, I'll follow up on that first, how do you prepare yourself emotionally? I've got some thoughts on that, but I want to hear from you. Chris: How do I or how does a seller? Joe: How does that seller prepare themselves emotionally? You said that is one of the biggest things they need to be prepared for, that it is emotional. How do they get prepared for that? Chris: I think broadly speaking and yeah just talk to them about the process. What is this going to look like for you from day one and then all the way to the exit day? And as long as you're very upfront about that and you're detailed about your explanation of what that process looks like, it reduces the amount of question in the seller's mind. And then if you're also honest with them and you're not selling a bill of goods that you can deliver, which is we're going to get you a buyer in the first week and that buyer is going to be the one that buys your business, they're going to close, it's that easy. If you create those kind of expectations, you're not going be able to deliver. Joe: Are you saying from a seller standpoint, it's actually hard to sell a million, two million dollar business? Chris: Yeah, it's a little bit difficult. And believe me, as that day gets closer and closer you're not going to get more calm. As you get closer to that million or two million dollars, you're going to start to tighten up a little bit. I won't say what I want to say, but you're going to tighten up a little bit and it's going to get more real and it's going to get daunting there for a little bit. But you just got to hold on and listen. That's the other thing, you asked what are two things you would do as a broker or what two things to consider with a seller. My second thing instead of going with the normal answer would be if I'm talking to a seller right now, listen to our coaching. And it's not because we're rocket scientists, it's not because we're smarter than you. You're an entrepreneur. You probably have certain personality traits that have gotten to where you are and why you're successful and we get that. We're entrepreneurs also, but we're not trying to say we're smarter than you or no more than you. But we actually have the knowledge of selling a business, not running your business, but selling a business. So if you're going to hire us, just trust us because we're there to coach you. We know the pitfalls. We know the traps. We know that things are not going to go perfectly all the time. That never happens. You're always going to get sidetracked. So if you just listen to our coaching, if you listen to our coaching when you're dealing with buyers, that's a huge part of it. So my second point of advice would be just trust us and allow us to coach you. Joe: And the sooner we can begin that process, the better. You don't want to talk to somebody, sign an engagement letter the next day, and then list the business for sale a week later. It's better really for everyone involved to start that process of building that trust and that relationship as early on in your business as possible. I love it when somebody calls and sets up a meeting with somebody on the team that says I'm tracking toward selling in Q1 of 2021 or 2022. Let's get started. I want to do a review. And we do that, we will look at the profit and loss statement, we'll look at the financial key metrics, we'll see what the strengths and weaknesses of the business are. We'll go over the process and educate you, help you set an exit goal. You're going to pick that number, not us. But we're going to help you understand what you're leftover with after the sale. It's not necessarily important what you sell it for it's what you could keep. And then ideally reverse engineer a path to that goal. And the longer you are from reverse engineering that path to the goal, the more likely you are going to achieve it or overachieve it or beyond that. Chris: Yeah, I agree. Joe: All right. Let's talk about bias. You've worked with a lot of them, both as the sell-side broker but you're working with buyers and then as the buy-side broker as well. Any advice for buyers when they come to you or anybody on the team or any broker period or actually to a seller directly for that matter, what should they be bringing to the table? Is it a Wall Street type negotiation, is it just come in and pay all cash, what are the secrets to being a great buyer? Chris: I think part of being a great buyer is also listening to the advisor because obviously there's two sides to the coin. So part of our job if we're representing a seller, is to get their business sold. And one of the ways we can do that and ensure that that happens is we lead the buyer through the process. And so that's no different. I interview buyers when we have a business for sale, we have a buyer that approaches us we basically interview the buyer as well. And one of the things that we coach them on is transparency, I think is a big one, because, in a lot of transactional environments, you're quote-unquote negotiating so you want to keep your cards close to the vest. In this sort of situation, we were talking about bigger dollars. Sellers need to know that you're financially capable of getting this transaction done. And so eventually you are going to have to be transparent, not only with your financial situation but also your experience. That's a big one because quite frankly, a lot of the time they're seller's notes, there's earn-outs in some situations and so your ability to pay that owner back is huge. And so when you're going through the process, that transparency is a big deal and a lot of buyers don't understand that. It's counterintuitive. Joe: It is. Instilling confidence and use the advisor first and foremost and then the guy that's going to be selling you the business is critical. Mr. Buyer. I had a call yesterday where I had to go through this process of; the first call I had with this particular buyer, first, he talked about the multiple and how high it was, and he only thought the business was worth X. It's all right. Well, they're not willing to sell it for even close to X, so maybe this one isn't for you. He did move on. In the same conversation, he talked about raising funds. He didn't have the capital for it. So two strikes did instill confidence in me that he thought the business was even close to what it was worth, close to what it was listed for. And two, he didn't have the capital. And so he's going to be raising the funds during a worldwide pandemic with a looming recession where banks are tightening things up. And from that, we had a good call. We had a call yesterday. I would say it was a good call, it wasn't a great call. The first call was a great call because it ended with maybe this doesn't make the most sense for you, but then he followed up with he really did a very thorough job reviewing the package and asked a lot of great questions. Yet there's not confidence in me or I have to reveal who this person is in detail to the seller of the business and neither one of us have a great deal of confidence. So I had a good call with him yesterday where I had to be honest and I think I'm slightly offended him saying, look, man, it happens. You spend a lot of time on this, yet you don't think the value is there and you're trying to raise money. My question was what are the odds? Give me a percentage, in your opinion that you will be successful in raising the capital to make this purchase? He goes, I think the odds are better good than not. I'm like, really? Come on, instill some confidence in me. I'm sorry if you're listening buyer, but I said some very nice things about you as well and I do have a lot of respect for you. I think it's just; and we talked about that, the instilling in confidence. Chris, you're human, right? I'm human. We're spending time trying to help both buyers and sellers get to a successful transaction and we're going to give both parties some advice that they're not necessarily going to like. But it comes from a place of experience; crazy, been there done that experience, and sometimes it's hard to get that across in a way that makes you feel warm and fuzzy when we're telling you. Chris: Oh definitely. Joe: Yeah, it's hard. Chris: One of the things I tell sellers every time we get an engagement is you're not going to hear from me unless I have somebody for you and I'm going to be spending 90% of my time with buyers. And a lot of the time they don't like the sound of that right off the bat. But I let that sink in for a minute and say, look I've got to establish a relationship with these buyers. I've got to establish trust with them and that's why I'm spending all my time with. And it's for you, Mr. Seller or Mrs. Seller. That's why I'm spending all this time with these buyers is establishing that trust and coaching them and letting them know what the process is and how we don't deviate from that process. It's the same thing every time. Every business is different and certain things will happen but we do not deviate from our process and the process is because of experience. That's all it is. Joe: Can you see, folks, why Chris is joining the team here? Bringing a great deal of experience and wisdom, credibility and a lot of credentials, as you can see, because of his insecurity to the team and helping us move in a direction on that buy-side that I think will help serve some of you in the audience to find things that are not listed. We as a company have never practiced spamming emails and reaching out to buyers to say, hey business owner, we've got a buyer for you when we really don't. Chris: Right. Joe: This will allow us to go ahead and reach out to buyers in an honest, sincere, and ethical; I'm sorry sellers. Chris: Sellers, yeah. Joe: Honest, sincere, and ethical way with 100% of the truth. So I'm looking forward to that, Chris. I'm looking forward to having you on the team for many years to come. I appreciate your time today. Chris: I'm so excited. I'm so glad to be with you guys and I appreciate the opportunity. Joe: Woz@QuietLightBrokerage.com, we've got the Woz on the team, guys. Thanks, everybody. We'll talk to you soon. Chris: Thank you. Resources: Woz@quietlightbrokerage.com Quiet Light Podcast@quietlightbrokerage.com

Published Sep 29, 2017 Chris: Hey world, Chris Hogan coming to you live from MeMedia Studio here in Burleigh Heads for 'Get Fact Up'. The new and improved version, delivering more content to you regularly, is in our vodcasting studio or podcasting studio. You can hire it out at Burleigh Heads as well, just enquire on our website. So here we are. Hanging on, Andrew? Andrew: Yeah, I'm good. Just had a double strength decaf. Chris: That did nothing. Andrew: Sorry, I was sitting on that one for a bit, sorry. Keep going. Chris: As you can see, we're keeping it light and humorous. So today we want to talk about the transition that's happening from broadcast, or traditional media, to online media. Basically, the millennials are moving away from traditional media and moving to social channels and whatnot for entertainment. Andrew: Well, the interesting thing about that is how we're delivering this today which, in my opinion, is shifting more towards live and daily content, and those sorts of things are happening on social. So what better way to deliver 'Get Fact Up' than through live video? Chris: Cool. Andrew: And that's what we're trying. Chris: So what are the channels that are actually performing best when it comes to live video? Andrew: Well, it's Facebook, YouTube, and then you've got other things like Instagram, which is obviously Facebook as well. It's like Facebook in your pocket, I guess you could say. And then, what else have you got? You've got Periscope. No one really uses Periscope. Chris: And also LinkedIn is coming out with their new update to allow you to shoot live video through their mobile app, and upload videos through the desktop. Andrew: Yep, LinkedIn always liked to party. But they're doing their thing. And then you've got things like Snapchat and all that, but from what I've heard, Snapchat's not gonna be around much longer. So let's not worry about that too much. Chris: Yeah, but those stories that are up there for 24 hours, they just aren't that interesting to anybody anymore. Especially the brands, I think, because ... Andrew: Yeah, it was a toy. People are getting past it. I don't know anyone that's really using Snapchat in that way anymore. And now there's also Instagram which has the same feature. Facebook has the same feature. It's really devalued that whole disposable story thing quite a bit. Chris: So with Facebook owning Instagram, we've seen a lot of changes in Instagram as well. They've actually brought in a lot of the features, their filters and all those overlays that Snapchat ... someone invented. And Facebook have kind of integrated those into both Facebook and Instagram. And Instagram have also updated their app, or their algorithm, to decrease the organic reach that people are getting to grow their channels. What problems does that present to newcomers to Instagram, do you think? Andrew: Well, I think when it went at a really saturated ... I don't want to call it a marketplace, because Instagram's not a marketplace. Chris: Channel. Andrew: It's a really saturated channel now. When I first started using Instagram and things like that, you could really grow a channel. You could easily get to two thousand followers, is that what we call them on Instagram? Yeah? Two thousand followers, just through organic means. Just through interacting with other people, and stuff like that. You just can't do it now. You don't get that sort of traction with posts and things like that anymore. You used to be able to put a post up and get two hundred likes, just by getting the right hashtag. That just doesn't happen now. You don't get that increase of followers, or that sort of thing. It's really just a feed now, and it's so saturated that if you're coming in with a unique idea, everyone is sort of doing that same thing. Everyone's coming in with a razor-sharp unique idea. You know, like the yoga paddle boarders and stuff like that. Everyone's coming in with something like that, it's just hypersaturation in there now. That's just how I feel about Instagram. Chris: We've talked about this many times, but I'm challenged by using Instagram due to the fact that when you're actually posting something, you can't actually put a link in the post, therefore not being able to redirect people off the channel onto your own. And here at MeMedia, we do a lot of content creation. We do a lot of marketing for clients. We call it integrated digital marketing. So essentially what we're doing is we're creating that content, we're using the social channels to distribute that content, and get traffic back to the website. That's an awesome indicator to Google to boost your SEO, boost your Google rankings. If you can't do that post on Instagram and actually put a link in the post and get the traffic to your website, the only way you can do that now is through using their advertising. Andrew: Using it in the profile, which is not helpful. Yeah. Chris: Or tell people to click on the link in the profile. Exactly. Not helpful. So to me, Instagram's not a great thing to use for SEO, for promoting people to come to your website, which is the media that you own. Obviously, when you're on these channels, you're only renting space. You know? And with Facebook updating algorithms, it's ... Andrew: You can't really turn that into leads, per se. You can use Instagram to get direct messages and stuff like that, but who wants to be walking around with their phone all the time replying to messages and things like that as a form of inquiry? You can't get calls and things off Instagram the way you can, unless you're doing ads and things. It's not getting it back to your website. Not in a meaningful way, anyway. Chris: They're actually using ads. Andrew: But it is a brand tool. And the people that do it well, the industries that do it well, things like cafes and clothing and things like that. But you know, they're getting their brand out there, and people see this, and they're like "I want that," and then they can go and find it. That doesn't work for everyone, that sort of effect on brand awareness doesn't work for everyone. You can't see a picture on Instagram of, for example, laser eye surgery, and think "that looks good. I'll just go and get that today." It doesn't work for everyone. Chris: So let's talk about what's happening with the aspirational youth and the Gen X, Y, Z. Basically, how they're becoming disengaged with traditional advertising. 99% of millennials are actually disengaged with traditional advertising. So trying to replicate traditional advertising methods on social channels isn't really that effective. Given that 55% of people watch videos online every day, there is this huge, I guess, shift from everyone to produce videos. Once again, they're trying to take that traditional ad that they've done previously ... Andrew: Ah, we're talking about traditional media, yeah. Chris: Yeah. They've done in traditional media ... Andrew: They're failing so hard. It's like they're jumping on these social channels and they're like "Great. So we use the TV formula on social media." And everyone goes, "I don't want to watch TV on Facebook. Goodbye." Or "I don't want to watch TV ads on Facebook, see you later." Chris: I don't even want to watch ads! Andrew: Well, yeah. And that's the thing. You have to be very creative with these new formats now. You have to really think around, okay, the people that are watching these formats, they're escaping TV. So if we come at them with ads, they're not gonna react well to it. Because they're ignoring TV and they're going to Facebook or Instagram or YouTube or something like that. Last thing they want is TV ads coming at them, because that's what they've come from. Chris: So yeah, cutting to that "Proudly brought to you by your sponsor, let's listen to a message from our sponsors," all of that type of messaging just isn't gonna work. And the reason why we're focused on millennials and these aspirational youth is because the global workforce by 2025 is gonna have 8% baby boomers, 28% Gen X, 33% Gen Y, and 31% Gen Z. So that's our audience. Andrew: It's all social media generations now, from here on in. Chris: Absolutely. Andrew: They're not going to react to a straight up sponsorship message, or a straight up advert. But the thing that's happening now is like these online sponsorship messages that happen in podcasts and things, where they just say "hey look, our podcast is funded by Rode Microphones or something like that." And people expect that. They know that you have to be able to make money out of these things. Chris: That's right. Then it comes down to authenticity. And one thing that you'll notice when you, or that we definitely notice, is that with advertising that's used in podcasts, the host of the show is actually delivering the message from their point of view. So like Andrew just said, we are proudly brought to you by one of our sponsors, Rode Microphones. And this kit is Rode Microphones kit. And it's bloody awesome! So we can actually say that, because we've used the product. Andrew: And we're literally using it right now. Chris: That's right. And just out of nowhere, we actually have extra kit if you want to do more podcast from this studio and have more people sitting at this table. So where to now? We're seeing these massive shifts to video, massive shift to live video, and what do we want to see when we're doing that? What are some of the ... we want to see reach, we want to see video views, and we want to see engagement. Andrew: The funny thing there is where it comes back to promotion. So we already know that people like live video. But you don't get an awful lot of rich engagement when the live video's happening. So with everything, eventually, it inevitably comes down to the paid promotion. Facebook used to be great. You put something on your Facebook page, or your Facebook page, followers saw it. Now, what percentage is it now? Chris: One? Andrew: It's like 1%? Chris: Organic, yeah. 1% organic. Andrew: That's so weak. So all of these new formats, they're great while they're happening and people think they're exciting, but then it becomes commonplace, and we need to look at the promotion side of things. And that's where it's a real problem. The two big contenders right now are YouTube and Facebook for the live video, and both of them had terrible paid promotion. It doesn't even exist, really. They both kind of, in their help, I'll just bring it up now. YouTube, for example, says during your event, yeah, you can create a highlight clip after your event. Or before your event get your followers excited, etc. But there's nothing for promotion of a live stream. I think you said Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned something at their F8 conference? Chris: Don't quote me on this, but it is a rumour that promotion of live video during the live stream is going to be available sometime in the not too distant future. There's a whole realm of issues that could present. Andrew: Yeah! Like, obviously it needs to happen because it's what people are getting excited about. It's where they're moving, so we have to be able to promote it. But what happens then? Because Facebook are kind of liable. They review ads, so we put like 200 ads up and they'll go through them and sixty might get through because of various reasons. How do they monitor the live video? So if someone says "I'm gonna do a video about this," but then it's about something else and it offends everyone, it looks bad for, say, Facebook or YouTube, so. Chris: Well that's where I think their feature that they've got now for videos that are uploaded is that they do have the ability for Facebook to process your captions. So for those that don't know, captions mean subtitles that appear at the bottom. That's pretty amazing technology. Obviously, that's done by a machine. And it's not 100% accurate, in fact it needs a lot of work. But if they have the ability to do that live, then potentially they can kick out those profanities and ... Andrew: Flagging things, and then someone comes in and manually watches it. Because Facebook already do that. What I've had explained to me by someone that does the forums on Facebook, there's an automatic review process, and that's what determines if your ads go live or not. And then if things get flagged, someone manually reviews it, so it's like a two step process. I think it'll be something like that. They're looking for profanity or things like that, and then someone will come in and check out that stream, maybe they check what the reactions are because people can react as they go, they can say "Like this, hate this." Maybe if it's too many people disliking it or having negative reactions, then someone jumps in. They'll have to find a solution around that if they want to monetise it, but they will monetise it because they love, especially Facebook, love monetising things. Chris: Of course, of course they do. Andrew: YouTube I'm not sure exactly how they're gonna do it. Chris: One of the most amazing things is, when we're actually creating content for our clients, is the reach and engagement that we get, and the video views that we're getting for our clients here at MeMedia. But one thing that's been amazing, and that's in a new venture that we've co-founded with two other directors, Leigh Kelson and Scott Burke, for Beach City, is amazing reach. Which is 1.8 million reach, 434,000 video views, and 109,000 post engagements on those videos. Andrew: And that's mostly with live video? Chris: Yes. All live video. Truly spectacular engagement, and that's the key metric that we're looking at there. Supposedly, 10% is excellent engagement, and we're actually getting over 20%. Given the multitude of places where we can post video, which we spoke about before, Facebook's an awesome place to get reach and engagement. People are spending less time actually viewing the videos on Facebook than they are on YouTube. Andrew: Definitely, significantly less. But YouTube's a video platform, so people are expecting it. There's still this sort of interrupted feeling for the live video on Facebook, because you get that notification saying "so-and-so's live." Some people just don't react so well to it. Some people are into it. Facebook's a feed of the content you're interested in there. So sometimes, "so-and-so's live" could be disruptive to someone just wanting to look at memes or something like that. But YouTube? Definitely, people are ready for live video on YouTube. Chris: There's a huge reason to post on YouTube, as we've discussed many times, and the reason why we post on YouTube is that obviously, Google doesn't crawl through Facebook's content to list it in the search engine results pages, which is the Google listings when you do a search. Whereas when you do post on YouTube, then there's an opportunity for those videos to appear in the search. Andrew: And that's something we often say to clients, it's like if you can't get a page rank for something because your competitors have great content for something, do they have videos? Probably not. Google's gonna favour videos, because they own YouTube. So that's a good way to sneak past. It's always a good reason to be putting videos on YouTube. Chris: And there's so many different ways you can create videos, whether it's slideshows or chats or podcasts. Andrew: Exactly. The other thing that's good about YouTube is it's always been a video platform, so it's more like a library than Facebook. Facebook's a feed, so things get lost if you post a lot. Things'll just disappear back. And people don't really go backwards through your feed too much. They might see something they like, and then they'll think "okay, let's look at old videos." It's not as easy to do with Facebook, but if someone sees something they like on YouTube, they can subscribe to you. They can get all your new videos. They can look at all your archived videos. It's a lot more organised for that sort of thing. But, the connectivity of people's not there on YouTube. Chris: No, that's right. Because I mean, there's just not as many people there. With Facebook having two billion plus monthly users ... Andrew: Yes. Let's bring that up. Chris: Over two billion monthly active Facebook users, with ages 25 to 34 making up 29% of those users worldwide. Andrew: Yeah, so this is all the people we're talking about. They're Gen Y, X, and millennials. They're all there, and they're online all the time. Something like 28 times a day someone checks their Facebook, on average. Chris: Of course. Andrew: In these generations. Chris: We're highly addicted beings and we really had no chance when the smartphone came around, to not be addicted according to Simon Sinek, the famous author. Some other stats. Like we said, the decline of broadcast TV. 24% decline in live TV for 18 to 24 year olds since 2016. There's a clear shift to social. There's a clear shift to YouTube. There's a clear shift to online. There's a clear shift in your very home, watching multi devices being used in the same room while the TV is still on, but just playing some average stuff in the background, to put it nicely. Andrew: That's, yeah. That's on a timeline that you can't really control. Chris: Yeah, so everything's on demand. 65% of global media consumers choose video on demand. Far out. Andrew: We're not even considering things like Netflix, the actual streaming TV services. Half the time when someone's saying TV, they actually mean Netflix. "I watched TV last night." They watched Netflix last night. That's another thing. But I suppose what we're getting at here about all this shift is what can you do about it? How can you leverage this from a marketing perspective? And that's where it gets interesting, because everyone's still trying to figure it out. How does this work? We're still trying to figure it out. And we're finding things that work, but how far can you push that before people start to get annoyed because you're in their personal downtime? If you're annoying someone on Facebook, you're in their downtime and people don't like being annoyed in their downtime. That's where it's leading edge right now, we're trying to figure out how to make this work. But the thing is, the big difference between traditional media and this new type of media like Facebook and YouTube and all this live video stuff is, you've got analytics, you've got metrics, so you can actually see the data behind this. You can see publicly accessible data about what people are reacting to, the results you're getting, and all that sort of thing. You're never gonna get that with TV. If you approach a TV channel and say "I want to put ads up," they'll tell you "You're gonna get so-and-so people, this many people watching it today." Chris: This is what our reach is per month and how many people we're reaching, this demographic. But you don't actually know what your specific ad or mention in the show, how many eyeballs it hit and how many people actually liked it. Andrew: And even if a TV's on, if there's a TV on and there's a family of five watching the TV, four of those people are on Facebook at any given time. So they can't really prove that. You see those, cinema advertising, which is probably even a step down from TV. You're watching a movie and it says "Cinema advertising works!" And you'll be the only person in the cinema. There's something wrong there. How can they prove any of this anymore? Chris: So clearly we've got a shift to social media, online media, and on-demand media. And we can actually give valuable ROI in terms of statistics and metrics of who viewed your particular piece of content, brand, you know, ad. So there's no time like the present, obviously, to make these shifts. And there's plenty other ways that are happening right here right now that ... you know, like, influencing marketing is another way to ... Andrew: Ah yeah, that's a mince higher with your podcast. Chris: Yep. I think we're gonna have to talk about that another time. So thanks very much for listening. Like we said, we hope you like Get Fact Up. The new way we're delivering, it somewhat helps our production time, helps us produce more content, and you can hire this studio too. Simply inquire on memedia.com.au. Thanks, and thanks to Rode Microphones for helping deliver this vodcast.

TO HIRE OR TO UPSKILL — That is the question. “We need to level up our digital marketing. Should I hire a professional or upskill my current team?” Today, our guys, Dave (CEO) and Chris (One of our star Ad Managers) share with us valuable insights on hiring vs upskilling, whether or not you and your team are ready to be upskilled, and the different helpful tools your team can learn new skills from!  

In this episode Chris and Diane give recommendations for books you should read in 2020 to go deeper in your relationship with God in your next decade! Show Notes & Links -Books to read in 2020 to go deeper with God. Some new, some classics. Links -Books we try and re-read annually  Diane: Power of a Praying Woman by Stormie Omartian I Am Not but I Know I Am by Louie Giglio Chris: Life of the Beloved by Henri Nouwen Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson 20,000 Days and Counting by Robert D. Smith Classics I recommend (Diane) Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers Canoeing the Mountains by Tod Bolsinger Love Does by Bob Goff New books I recommend (Chris) One in a Million by Priscilla Shirer Holy Roar by Chris Tomlin Free of Me by Sharon Hodde Miller Honorable Mentions: Strengths Finder 2.0 & Emotional Intelligence Emboldened by Tara Beth Leach Malcolm Gladwell books Clutter Free by Cathy Lipp True Religion by Palmer Chinchen Keeping Love Alive as Memories Fade (The Five Love Languages and the Alzhemier's Journey) by Gary Chapman, Debbie Barr, and Edward Shaw Connect With Us: Please join tour community on our Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/womenfinishingwell/ Join our email list and get upcoming announcements about events, online Bible studies, and monthly giveaways: https://forms.aweber.com/form/40/1204767040.htm Leave us a comment on the website podcast page and tell us what you're reading! https://womenfinishingwell.com/episode30/ Have you got a copy of our new Bible study? Get one here: https://amzn.to/2Kz1D61      

On the October 4, 2019 episode of /Film Daily, /Film editor-in-chief Peter Sciretta is joined by /Film managing editor Jacob Hall and writer Chris Evangelista to debate Martin Scorsese's recent comments about superhero movies.   The Topic: Martin Scorsese Doesn't Like Superhero Movies and the Internet is Really Mad About It While doing press for The Irishman, Martin Scorsese said the following about superhero movies: “I don't see them. I tried, you know? But that's not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn't the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being."   The Question: Is Martin Scorsese belittling superhero movies and those who make and enjoy them?   The Rules: Only one person can speak at a time. When the speaker is out of time, they must stop talking. Personal insults are not allowed! We are all going to be friends when this is over.   Opening Statements: Peter (One minute) Chris (One minute)   Round One: Peter: Scorsese is insulting the thousands of people who work to create this form of art. (Two minutes) Chris responds (One minute)   Round Two: Chris: Scorsese isn't even saying superhero movies are bad. (Two minutes) Peter responds (One minute)   Round Three: Peter: Scorsese's remarks come from a place of ignorance, not informed intelligence (Two minutes) Chris responds (One minute)   Round Four: Chris: The comparison to theme park rides is actually apt. (Two minutes) Peter responds (One minute)   Closing Statements:  Chris (One minute) Peter (One minute)   Other Articles Mentioned:   All the other stuff you need to know: You can find more about all the stories we mentioned on today's show at slashfilm.com, and linked inside the show notes. /Film Daily is published every weekday, bringing you the most exciting news from the world of movies and television as well as deeper dives into the great features from slashfilm.com.  You can subscribe to /Film Daily on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the popular podcast apps (RSS).  Send your feedback, questions, comments and concerns to us at peter@slashfilm.com. Please leave your name and general geographic location in case we mention the e-mail on the air. Please rate and review the podcast on iTunes, tell your friends and spread the word!  Thanks to Sam Hume for our logo.

Download this Episode It's easy to for some agents to get along well with their peers. For others, not so much. Tune in today as we discuss the skills necessary to be a pro that other pros want to be around. Here are the secrets to playing nice in the sandbox. The rules are simple. Play nice in the sand box. Rethink Real Estate Podcast Transcription Audio length 31:05 RTRE 36 –  Erica Ramus on Promoting Women Leaders [music] [Chris] Welcome to re:Think Real Estate, your educational and hopefully entertaining source for all things real estate, business, news and tech.  [Christian]: I am Christian Harris in Seattle, Washington. [Nathan]: Hi, I am Nathan White in Columbus, Ohio. [Chris]: And I am Chris Lazarus in Atlanta, Georgia. Thanks for tuning in.  [music] [Chris]: Hi everybody and welcome back to re:Think Real Estate. I am your host Chris Lazarus here with Nathan White, Christian Harris. Guys how are you? [Christian]: Hey. [Nathan]: Hey, I am fantastic and beautiful. [Chris]: Hey Nate how is that CRM going? [Nathan]: I knew that was coming why didn't I [inaudible] [laughter]. The think about my CRM. I am embarrassed. I swear people it is happening. It is going to get out of my head and… [Christian]: We do know you swear a lot. [Chris]: Yeah you do swear a lot. [Nathan]: Yes I am going like…Man it's gonna be bad. It's gonna be bad in my office. I am gonna have to shut the door. There is going to be a lot of curse words probably. Probably. But you know I drink a lot of caffeine and I swear a lot people, if you don't know. So yeah we're getting there. It is process right. So I should…The episode after this hands down I will give you some feedback. [Chris]: It's OK. We're gonna keep your feet to the fire. [Christian]: Focus that caffeine and rage to getting your CRM up and running. [Chris]: Definitely. So.. [Nathan]: Yeah I am going to. [Chris]: For everybody tuning in if you get a chance, if you haven't already. Go to and check out our website and our new newsletter at rtrepodcast.com. If you go there, you can click on the little box. Type in your name and email address and every week when we launch a new episode you will be notified. So this week we have an amazing guest. Her name is Erica Ramus. She is the broker owner and magic maker at Ramus Realty. Erica welcome. [Erica]: Thanks guys. [Chris]: It's great to have you on. For our agents who are not in your neck of the woods, why don't you tell us a bit about you and your company? [Erica]: Sure. I am the broker of a small independent boutique company in rural Pennsylvania. I run the middle of the North East. And so most of the cities around. I am very, very wear off. And we have less than 10 agents. I have 8 agents and me and an apprentice in the office. And while we are small in boutique we are mighty. So, we have only 8 people in the office but we have 13% market share.  [Chris]: What? [Erica]: Yeah. The largest companies in the area have 15, 20 and 80 agents. And consistently we have…typically we have…I checked yesterday. We have 40 sites pending currently. And the biggest company has 75.  [Chris]: Wow. That is incredible. [Erica]: So highly productive.  [Chris]: Very highly productive. So when we first met it was…You know it feels like this entire podcast is right around the Inman crowd because Erica and I we met out at Inman. Christian was there also when we were doing the…feeding the homeless. Before the conference started and we were at the same panel about being a broker and non-producing.  So you operate your brokerage a little bit different than I do. Which is you know I am the trainer right I don't go and do really anything. I hope people build their own careers. Tell us a little bit about how your office is run. How are…how are you able to obtain 13% market share with only 8 agents under you? [Erica]: I think of my office as running almost like a super team.  [Chris]: OK. [Erica]: So my name is on the door and before I was in real estate I was a magazine publisher. And I had multiple magazines which…one was a local scoop living magazine. So you probably have Atlanta Life or Atlanta Living or Seattle Living. Something like that. [Chris]: Yeah. [Erica]: So I started that and everybody in town knew me. I was the magazine lady. I was selling ads. And hawking my magazine. And than I got into real estate so when I got in I was almost an immediate success because everybody already knew my face. And I used the magazine to my benefit as well. All of my houses of course were advertised in my own magazine. [Chris]: Nice. [Erica]: So it as a great jump-start. But I built a team under me. I very quickly realized that I couldn't service the leads that were coming in. And so than I left to go out on my own. I built a team up of people who just honestly want to be fed. I produce the leads. I state myself as the reign maker ruler. I do all the marketing on the back end. My face is on almost everything.  And when we're agent advertising my name is on the door so I have very strict control over quality. I do all the marketing and produce all the materials myself. The leads come in, the get filtered through the agents and than I am to deal with after  in the background if something goes wrong. But that is my role. I see it as feeding the agents and making sure that everybody is happy and productive.  [Chris]: And recently you were telling me I think a couple of months ago that you started doing a lot more travel recently and talking and really try moving into more a leadership role within the industry right? [Erica]: yep. So I have always written. Obviously magazine writing was my background and blogging. And so I have always written articles and so I am speaking locally. But recently in the past 2, 3 years I started taking up national speaking engagements. I spoke at Better Homes and Gardens about 2 years ago at their last region event. And Inman and National…NAR. And so my inner circuit.  [Chris]: I am impressed.  [Christian]: Awkward pause OK. [Chris]: Awkward pause.  [Christian]: OK. [Chris]: There we go. Alright there we go. So…So you…Inman, Better Homes and Gardens, NAR. Now you're on one of the committees with NAR too right? [Erica]: Yep. Next year I am on the research and development committee. This past 2 years I have been on the housing opportunity committee. I have dome some professional development so… [Chris]: That's fantastic. So the reason I am bringing this up is because there has been a lot of talk. And a lot of focus on women leaders within our industry. Because let's face it, Christian, Nate and I are the majority. I am sorry we're the minority in real estate. This industry is almost 60% female and the leadership is skewed the other direction.  So tell us what it is like to be not only a broker owner as a female because that is something we will never know but also to be putting yourself out there in the leadership role as a speaker and travelling across the US to talk about helping other women to step into a leadership role and grow their business also. [Erica]: That is something I have always been passionate about, it is owning my own business. I started my own businesses from scratch. When I was in my early 20s. And it was the magazine business. I was not content about just being the editor or publisher. I wanted to own the magazine. And I did. So I have always been an entrepreneur.  And once I started in real estate I knew very quickly I either wanted an ownership role in my company or I was gonna start my own. So to me it was never a question of why would I try or why would I do it. I question all the time why ever women don't step out into leadership roles. And why they don't start their own brokerages. A lot of women seem to express that they're unhappy where they are. And they search for other brokers. When I was unhappy I just started my own company.  So…But I think it is something that is inside of you. It is innate. And a lot of women I believe are afraid to take the chance. It was a huge risk when I went out on my own and I had a young son and my husband but who totally supports me and everything I do. All my crazy ideas. But you know why don't women say “I want to make a change”? And instead of jumping from broker to broker “I want t start my own company” or “I want to be a manager in the firm”.  But almost all the managers and owners in my area they're all men. So…Local especially when the kids are young and if you have children you can relate. I know you have children and I know Christian and Chris you both have young children. But I didn't have a husband at home taking care of the kids. And he works too so that was challenge and that is probably why I didn't travel and didn't do a lot of speaking. Occasionally I would travel but I didn't do the NAR stuff. I didn't do the contract until the kids were out of the house and it was much easier. Now I just have to worry about the dog. [Christian]: So Erica being the reign maker at your office you mentioned kind of matching leads and giving hose out and kind of working all the back end stuff and being very involved with the transactions. What is your means of acquiring that new business. Do you kind of do the traditional you buy them or are you just a known entity that you actually got a lot of community coming to you? When they have real estate needs? [Erica]: WE do both because while I certainly have enough organic coming into the site…The site is…I don't know 15 years old basically. We get great Google traffic on our own but we also do buy some leads. So specifically we have about 35% of our closing will be repeat referral business. Out at a given point and the remainder are just walk-in office street. We have a very prominent location on a busy highway corner. And we also have a little bit of Zillow paid. Not much. We actually cut that back significantly. But Zillow pushes a lot of Facebook ads. And we get great leads just from Facebook and also some Google paid.  [Chris]: Has there ever been anything that has happened to you that you think would discourage another woman agent from becoming their own business owner or stepping up into a leadership role either on NAR or on a national speaking arrangement? [Erica]: I think there still is a disconnect between strong women and the belief that strong women versus a strong man in negotiating or even running a company, the woman is not necessarily respected as much as the man. I just…I still see that. And I believe that a man who is negotiating a problem on a deal who is a broker and if he is perceived as being strong is not necessarily being perceived as difficult. He is just being a strong businessman and negotiating or advocating for his client.  Whereas women when we step up to the table and argue on behalf of our client or try to push something through that is strong in our belief we're seen in a negative light as opposed to a positive right. And I haven't necessarily seen this happen on a national level. Every meeting and committee that I have been involved with in the state national has been very respectful. But I see it locally. Most of the brokers around me are all men The managers are men and there is definitely still the stigma against the strong women.  [Chris]: In your office what is the breakdown on demographic, men versus women that are working with you? [Erica]: I have one fantastic man [laughter]. [Chris]: One fantastic man so you have 7 agents working for you that are… [Erica]: All women.  [Chris]: All female. So…Christian and I are running our own office. We each have our own company and obviously we do not fully understand the female experience. If we wanted to create an environment that is conductive for females to come in and be successful and grow their business, what should we do as male brokers in an industry that is 60% female? [Erica]: I would say bring them along with you. Bring them up and along. Bring them to meetings. Bring them if you're going to say chambers of commerce function. Or local meetings. Board meetings. Bring them with you and mentor them up. I think women have to be told that it is OK. It is OK to be strong. It is OK to get a babysitter some nights and go out to business functions. You don't have to be home every night with the kids. I… Women feel guilty about this. I know I did. Getting my broker's license I had to have my best friend at the house from 6 to 10 Thursday nights when I took my classes. And I felt terrible that they were in school all day with my friends rather than with me. But…You have to empower them and also listen to them. You should listen to. A lot of women get stepped on their voices get stepped on and they don't necessarily feel like they are heard.  In my office meetings for example the man in my office he's named Will. He is fantastic. He is very open to giving suggestions at our office meetings. His voice is very vocal. And I have watched some of the women step back a little bit when he speaks and I will pull them out of their shell and say “That is a great idea Will. What do you think about it Stephanie?” And pull them up so that they are not shrinking violets in the background. [Chris]: That's a…I think that is fantastic. we'll have to make sure that we are doing things like that because you know right now we…at least my office is predominantly female. So we try and create an environment where no ideas are really shunt. Right we want everybody to feel empowered that when they come into the office their ego is left at the door and everybody is here to either better themselves or better the people around them.  OK If they're not in the office for one of those 2 reasons they're not welcome because every…So we want that environment where people feel “Oh hey you know what everybody's voice is heard and everybody gets the same amount of focus form the office on how they can grow their business.” And I think one of the challenges being a male broker is that we just instinctively we yell at each other. I mean guys, that's what we do. [Erica]: Right. [Chris]: So when we sit in meeting we're gonna yell at each other. Politely but we're gonna basically be vocal. And what I have learnt is that a lot of women let that happen. They kind of step back so I really like that. That's one of the things that I am gonna have to work on. When I am in those meetings recognizing when they are kind of stepping back and binging them forward. That is great. Thank you Erica. [Erica]: What's the body language? And you know when someone has something to say but they're not gonna say it. And I pull them out of it and make them say it because I wanted them to know their voice is important to me.  [Christian]: Yeah I thing that is important as a leader whether male or female. You know people have different personality types and you know kind of as a type females in general tend to be not as aggressive. So…But you know I know that guys are like that too kind of pick them out like “Hey you know I see you haven't said anything during this meeting, what do you think about this” you  know and try to pull them back in. [Chris]: I think that is excellent advice. So take note brokers. Male brokers. This is what you gotta be doing because face it women are on the move and it's…They're the majority we're the minority, I am the user minority because I am not only a man, but I am a millennial. We make up 4% of the industry. So…It's important to pay attention to this stuff. Nate? [Nathan]: So to pick back on that Erica I always like to ask our guests questions that we have on the show. So the first one I would almost think maybe it would be applicable maybe I am wrong, but first question I want to ask you is how is failure and current failure set you up for later success? Question 2 is what are bad recommendations you hear in our profession and then the third one is if you can have a gigantic billboard anywhere with anything on it what would it say? So go [laughter]. [Erica]: OK and the first question is easy. The biggest failure in my entire life was when I had the magazine. I bought the magazine from my prior boss. I got tired of doing all the work. That's what I thought. Doing all the work and not being the boss so I just bought them out. And I blamed the pregnancy on that one.  So I bought it without looking at the numbers without the advice of my attorney, my accountant and my husband. [laughter]. The trifecta and a couple of years later I…the whole industry changed. Destruction came in. The disruptors but we already hear them all the time in our industry. And domino started falling and I was 3 quarters of a million in debt. In this tiny little rural world and I somehow managed to start a second magazine which actually was successful but I learned huge, huge lessons in that first failure, like when you get a pay, pay roll, you don't use a discover card. You know or huge lessons that I never repeated again.  All having to do with my ego and the handling of overhead. Which leads me to number 2. So handling the overhead whether you're the broker or the agent. Everyday my agents come to me I feel with this great news scam. This great new product that somebody wants them to buy it too. “It's only 99 dollars a month. It's only 25 dollars a week. Only…It's only 100 dollars to put a business card up on our program.” You know over and over again. “It's only…It's only”.  And there are people who make lots of money selling products off the backs of agents who should not be spending that money. So, I warned my new agents “Please don't spend any money on any lead generators. I will make your leads for you. Just sit back and work the leads. And do not ever say it's only, because in January when you're adding up your taxes it's gonna be a huge number”. So that to me is one follows the other. Keep your overhead low. [Chris]: Shiny object syndrome.  [Erica]: Yeah the new shiny object thing. [Nathan]: Yeah we have talked about that before but that is a great recommendation. I mean awesome. Awesome recommendation.  [Chris]: “It's only gonna cost me my success”. [laughter] [Erica]: Yeah and than they say “You only need to sell one house”. If you only sell one house you can't pay off the thing. Now I don't want to hear that. [laughter]. And then I guess my billboard would be “Be fearless”. Just that's my motto “Be fearless”. I am… [Chris]: Where would you put it? [Erica]: I would… [Nathan]: I didn't ask where. [Erica]: Yeah he didn't ask where so I don't have to answer that question. [laughter] [Chris]: OK OK ,be fearless. [Nathan]: Yeah I mean literally the question is “If you could have it anywhere with anything on it…” I mean it doesn't matter where it is it's what's on it I guess. Is the message. And be fearless. [Erica]: Yeah. [Chris]: I love that. So Erica we were talking the other day and you were currently working on an article for Inman. About how we focus our business. This kind of piggy bags off of our last episode with Billy a little bit. So what is your philosophy? You are running this business, you've got 8 agents, you are the reign maker. They are killing it. You've got great market share. What is your business philosophy about how you treat your clients and how does that set you apart? [Erica]: I…A lot of brokers say “We're agent centric, we're agent focused, we're all about the agent”. I believe the broker owns the client and I am client focused. It's all about the client. If you serve the client well the agents will be well fed and taken care of and that side of the coin takes care of itself. But it all begins with the broker and the client and so our entire office is very client centric. Even to the fact that if somebody is working with the client they're not handling it well or they are not mixing well with this person, they're getting frustrated. We will just pull them off that one and say “Give it to this person”. And switch them. It's about the client not about you and your commission or the money coming into the office. [Christian]: Preach it sister.  [Erica]: So…Say it again. [Christian]: I said preach it sister. [Nathan]: Preach it is right. I mean if you go by even our last episode part of this. Again it's client. This is like another one of the common themes in our podcast right guys? I mean and lady.  [Chris]: It's tuning in. [Nathan]: Listen listen, this is not rocker science. We are not reinventing the wheel. We are not…We are not coming up with something new. We're actually just going in and doing what we should be doing and taking care of the client. Good Gosh I mean we can't say it enough. But I mean why do we have to keep saying it? [Erica]: Because people are too dump to do it. It's simple.  [Christian]: Right. Well and I think it's because we push it back against the status quo of the industry. The franchises… [Chris]: They're like KPIs KPIs KPIs. [Christian]: All of that stuff is set up to be focused on sales and numbers and money and getting as many agents as possible you know. [Erica]: Yeah. [Chris]: Recruit retain recruit retain. [Christian]: Exactly. So I mean being client focused or caring about people is not…You are going against the flow of how the whole industry works. [Nathan]: Right yeah. You know there are stats and all that good. I had an agents yesterday…sag way real quick. Sorry. They chased bank at their home office. I get invited to their…their first time or their home buyer programs. And it is great being a chased preferred agent but they are having to be another agent there that is new and one of the other agent speaks and said “Hey we haven't lost the house and in our competitive market you probably will.” And she said “Not me” And I was like oh come on just stop. Like here we go with the ego and not making it about the client, you're making it about you. And can we just…More people. I am gonna stop. Just stop making it about you there. [laughter] [Chris]: Yeah it's the ego. [Erica]: And brokers can be afraid to get people out of their office when they don't fit not only the culture but the way the agent should be. I terminated one who was all about her. She rebelled on a client because the client was 10 minutes late on an appointment [laughter]. And the client forwarded me the text message and she said “I don't have time to wait for people at houses”. I was “You need to leave now” [laughter]. [Nathan]: If this was online and like a quote I would be doing that arrow and this…This this right… [Chris]: Yes. [Nathan]: Man that is…Yes. Don't be afraid. [Chris]: One of the…One of the things that I have learned over the last few years in kind of the leadership role of running a company is your culture that you build and that you operate is based off of thousands of tiny interactions. When you have people like that the ego, the meltdown, the trip, like they're just gonna suck and drain all the energy away from the people that are really trying to do good. So I couldn't agree with you more Erica. You just gotta get rid of those people. Unfortunately, I think there is too many brokers that if you got a pulse and a license you're… [Erica]: When you're being judged…When you're in a major franchise and you're being judged by the head count in  your office…I don't judge myself. People ask me...I will go to Inman and the first word out of their mouth is how many agents I have in the office. So I have… [Christian]: It's the metrics of measuring success. [Erica]: Exactly. I am proud of my market share. I am proud of the fact that my agents do a minimum of 24 sites a year. I have 2 that are doing 40 this year and one who is approaching 60. That is a lot of site. [Chris]: That is a lot of site. [Nathan]: That is slaying the dragon. [Chris]: I think that having…A lot of people put pressure on the metrics. “Oh number of agents, volume sold”. But I think the biggest metric is per person productivity. Because I think if those numbers win the per person productivity I think you are destroying Remax who is the…I mean their franchise on average is the highest per person productivity at like 16 sites per agent on average.  They don't even bring in KW because they are the biggest but they don't have the numbers per agent that KW has. That Remax has. And your average real estate agent in the industry is gonna do like what? 3, .4 deals per year? And that's just sites. So 3,4 sites per year I think is the average. And you are destroying that. And that is fantastic and you're doing it with a complete math of 10 people.  [Christian]: Yeah and that's the…That's the business number side of it. Anything else taken into accounts, smaller you know indie brokerages like ours you know can have the luxury of being able to be in charge, in control of developing that culture, how happy are your agents? You know, like on Remax or whatever. You know name any franchise and you know largely they have undefined culture. Like there is no distinguishing factor as to you know….What is like in their office versus anther franchise. Like they're just there to you know have head count. [Chris]: Our office has the best coffee machine. [laughter] Stuff like that. So Erica for any…We've had the theme kind of today of being the woman business owner. For anybody who is thinking about like stepping up like what advice would you give them? [Erica]: I would say that if you're not strong in your leadership skills or don't feel like you're there, that don't know how to be a leader, get a coach, get a mentor. There are at least in my areas there is classes you can take as far as leadership. Or find someone who you admire and ask them to take you under their wing because it really is by osmosis I think in this business and if there is someone in your office who shows promise bring them up with you. I take my agents all the time to chamber of commerce function, to mixers and just have them by my side so they can watch me interacting with other business people an helpfully bring up their confidence level. [Chris]: I love it. That's great. Erica for anybody who wants to get in touch with you and say they've got somebody moving to Pennsylvania or they just want to reach out and pick your brain on some of the things that you have accomplished, what is the best way that they can reach you? [Erica]: They can always call me or email me. My email address is easy, it's my name. ericaramus@gmail.com. And that's –E-R-I-C-A-R-A-M-U-S@gmail. And my phone number is 5704492131. If you google me it's all over. [Chris]: Awesome. Erica thank you so much for taking the time out of your day today to join us here in re:Think Real Estate. For everybody who is listening in please visit us. Go to rtrepodcast.com. Subscribe to the newsletter so every week when we launch a new episode you're gonna get notified. Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll see you next week.  [music]  [Chris]: Thanks for tuning in this week's episode of the re:Think Real Estate Podcast. We would love to hear your feedback so please leave us a review on iTunes. Our music is curtesy of Dan Koch K-O-C-H, whose music can be explored and licensed for use at dankoch.net. Thank you Dan. Please like, share and follow. You can find us on Facebook at Facebook.com/rethinkpodcast. Thank you so much for tuning in everyone and have a great week.  [music]  

Last year, Idaho became the second state to require malpractice insurance for private practitioners — and the first to adopt an open-market model to serve their state bar members. How did year one go? ALPS Executive Vice President Chris Newbold checks in with Diane Minnich, Executive Director of the Idaho State Bar, to find out in this episode of ALPS In Brief Podcast. Transcript: CHRIS NEWBOLD: Good afternoon and welcome to another edition of ALPS in Brief. My name is Chris Newbold, Executive Vice President of ALPS, standing in for Mark Bassingthwaighte, for a podcast around an issue that's growing in importance particularly out West which is requiring lawyers to have malpractice insurance. Today I'm joined by Diane Minnich who's the Executive Director of the Idaho State Bar. And Idaho recently became the second state in the country to require malpractice insurance for private practitioners as a condition of licensure. So, Diane, thanks for joining me today. DIANNE MINNICH: You're welcome. CHRIS: So let's just maybe talk about just kind of how the concept in Idaho got started. What was the mechanism that triggered the discussion and when did it take place? DIANNE: Any rule change that is proposed in Idaho has to be taken to the Idaho State Bar membership for a vote and so in this particular case our president at the time thought that requiring malpractice insurance of attorneys was the right thing to do. She had done some defense work and felt like sometimes the clients were not being served well by those lawyers who threatened to file bankruptcy if you filed a malpractice claim against them. So she submitted that issue to our membership in 2016 and we went to every ... We go around the state, visit with all the lawyers. They all have an opportunity to vote. We talked with them. We had the people who were concerned and people who were supportive and it passed by the membership. Once that happened then we submit that proposal to the Supreme Court and they adopted it in 2017. In 2018 licensing, which is this year, was the first year that it was implemented for all lawyers that were representing private clients in Idaho. CHRIS: Okay. Now, the other state that requires malpractice insurance is Oregon and I think your model is a little bit different than the Oregon model. Talk to us about what model you adopted and why. DIANNE: The model we have is just basically open market, that every lawyer that represents private clients is required to obtain malpractice insurance in a 300 ... 100, 300 are the limits. We looked at the Oregon model in the past and I think our population of lawyers is just not large enough to support that particular model and so we determined that to try it out in the ... Let everybody try to find the insurance themselves and determine what they want to pay and who they want to go with, who they want as their carrier, was the best approach for us given our size. CHRIS: Okay, so you required it of your lawyers to go into the open market and was everybody who was required to get insurance, were they able to secure insurance? DIANNE: As far as we know everyone that was required under the rule to obtain insurance has done so. We had some that it took some time to do so. There were some concerns about cost and so some people said they couldn't get it and the real issue was the cost. We've learned since then there have been a few lawyers who didn't re-up their licensing because they didn't have insurance and we're going to encourage them to go ahead and do the licensing and then we'll work with them on insurance. I think there was a group of lawyers who were on the verge of retirement who, having to obtain insurance at this point in their career, made a choice to not continue to practice. Most of those that made that choice were close to retirement anyway and it sort of was the thing that pushed them over that to make that final decision which is, "Okay, I'm getting ready to retire. Now I'm going to do so." CHRIS: How many lawyers in Idaho are there and how many are kind of required to abide by the new rule? DIANNE: Our total membership is about 6,500. The active members is 4,000 and I think we determined that lawyers subject to the rule was in the 3,000 range, a little over 3,000. CHRIS: Okay. And so again, you were the first one in the country to kind of really go down the road of an open market model. Upon reflection now that you went through one cycle, right? DIANNE: Yes. CHRIS: Getting ready to go into a second year of a cycle. Just your general impressions of how you felt like it went and kind of the response from the membership. DIANE: We think it went relatively well. Everyone, like I said, who was required did obtain insurance. The questions we had were legitimate ones. We get a few calls from people that just are opposed to the concept but many of the questions were, house counsel, I'm a corporate counsel. How do I fit into the mix?" Part-time practice is an issue. "I'm only going to practice part time. Do I need insurance?" Pro bono. Those things I think we were able to deal with and those were where most of the questions came from lawyers in terms of just trying to understand. Our rule is very simple. Doesn't have any exceptions, doesn't have a lot of pieces and moving parts so in some ways that's good because it allowed us some flexibility to make decisions about how we handle certain issues. This year we revised the form some. We're ready to answer questions. We revised the FAQ to be a little bit more in line with the questions that were asked. I think we're ready to go. The lawyers were really, even those that are opposed to the concept were very respectful and professional about it. Once you explain to them how it works most of them were very thankful. "Thank you for answering my question", and went off and found insurance. CHRIS: Do you know the number of uninsured lawyers that you generally had in Idaho before the rule was enacted? DIANNE: Our best guess ... We had mandatory disclosure, whether or not you have insurance prior to this and have had it for a while, 10, 12 years. And so we figured in the range of 15 to 20%. It's hard to tell because our records were ... You have to pull out public attorneys out of the requirement of malpractice so kind of manipulate those. Statistics to try to figure out who really should have and shouldn't but I'm thinking 15 to 20% of the lawyers who are now required to have it did not have it prior to this time. CHRIS: Do you think the majority of those were probably more solo attorneys versus those in firms or ...? DIANNE: Most of them are either solo or small practices, yes. CHRIS: One of the things that sometimes people who don't have malpractice insurance that are coming into the market, obviously a big question is price, right? Any reflections on the price point in which people ultimately had to pay to come into the market? DIANNE: We asked lawyers when they ... They have to submit proof that they have insurance. So a dec page or a letter from the insurance company. We ask them to redact their premium amount and many did, many did not. We have a general idea and I talked to a lot of people on the phone anecdotally. From a part-time practice you know, it started anywhere from 500 up. I think of when I did sort of a random look at what people had it appears that in the two to three thousand dollar range is probably where most of it ... On a solo practice — a person — that was probably the average. CHRIS: Yeah, I guess I know that. Obviously we enjoy a relationship with the Idaho State Bar in terms of your endorsed carrier. Oftentimes those coming into the marketplace without any insurance are coming in without any kind of exposure ... DIANNE: Right. CHRIS: ... in terms of their entry point into the market was oftentimes enables them to get a credit which pushes the price down at least early on in their career and then as they gain more exposure then the price ultimately goes up. DIANNE: Yeah and I think that's the question we're going to have this year, is the price is going to go up for a lot of the people that got it for the first time. Just being able to answer that question. Letting them understand that the prior risk has to be there as part of the policy. Those I think are going to be what we're going to deal with in terms of questions from lawyers this year. Everyone has it and one would assume they can go ahead and just re-up their insurance. The price is probably still going to become an issue. CHRIS: Yeah, yeah. The Idaho State Bar is a regulatory entity, yes? DIANNE: Yes. CHRIS: And so as you think about the ... I guess I'm curious on how you see this particular rule falling into your regulatory authority and ultimately what was the rule enacted to protect or prevent? DIANNE: I think the ... Couple things, one is the bottom line is it does protect the public in terms of the clients who have lawyers and if something happens that falls into the arena of a malpractice claim that they have an option in terms of to do something about that. I also think in general if you talk to people, they assume lawyers do have insurance. It's interesting how many people I've said it to that were not lawyers that said, "Oh, I thought everyone did." And so I think part of that is just a perception that that's something that is the right thing to do and that lawyers, like other professions, do and for the most part in this country they don't. And I think it protects lawyers too at some level. You know, if a lawyer has a client who's going to file a claim, they have some coverage too in case that is not legitimate or they need help or even if they did do something wrong. It can be fixed because sometimes lawyers make mistakes. CHRIS: Yeah. DIANE: And then that can be covered for them. CHRIS: Yeah. Well, good. As you know, there are other states around the country that are also kind of taking a look at enacting mandatory malpractice. Nevada was looking at it. Washington's looking at it, California's looking at it. Any advice or counsel to those other Bars that might think that this is the right type of rule that would protect the public and be important in terms of preserving confidence in the legal system? DIANE: I mean, I think all of those things are true. I think from a Bar's perspective it's the right thing to do. It's doable whether you want to go with an Oregon model or our model. But it's a lot of work. I think from an administrative standpoint, if you are a Bar, especially a larger one than we are, the amount of time and effort it's going to take to implement something like this is something you have to take into consideration. These things don't just happen and you want to do it right. We, one of my lawyers and I, we answered all the questions ourselves because we wanted lawyers to know, "We're listening to you. We're going to try to solve your problem. We're going to try to figure out how you fit into the rule." And we can do that in a small state, you know, be able to have that personal customer service so that they're feeling like, "Yeah, we have to do this but they're listening to me and helping me get to the place that I need to be in terms of obtaining insurance." CHRIS: Yeah. One final question, as the court enacted the rule, you obviously then had a period where I think you tried to do a significant amount of education, right? Before ... DIANE: Right. CHRIS: Because this is all part of the annual dues? DIANE: License fees. CHRIS: License fees? DIANE: Well, it's part of licensing requirements. Obviously they don't pay anything to us but ... CHRIS: So talk to us about just kind of what you did in that lead-up period because I think that will be important for others thinking about it. DIANE: We used all of our communication avenues, our magazine. I have an article, we have a weekly bulletin. And we wrote letters directly to everyone that we could determine should have it and didn't. Like we could figure out through our database and who said, "I don't have insurance" through the mandatory disclosure. We sent personalized letters to each of those people and said, "Okay. Here's the deal. Here's what's going to happen next. From our records you indicate you don't have it." So that they knew ahead of time, like six months out, that that's what was going to happen next. CHRIS: Well, good. Diane, anything else that you'd like to add before we wrap this podcast up? DIANE: I don't think so. I think it went ... It went more smoothly than I anticipated it and I'm just going to be interested to see how year two goes. CHRIS: Yeah. I mean, a couple of adjectives you threw out there was doable, somewhat smooth, not a lot of negative member feedback. Obviously some people weren't thrilled to have to kind of be subject to the new rule but it seemed to go well for Idaho. DIANE: Yes, it did. CHRIS: Good. Well, thank you, Diane. I appreciate your time today and appreciate the audience for listening in. If you have any other ideas for upcoming ALPS podcasts, feel free to let us know. Thanks and goodbye.

Panel: Chris Fritz Joe Eames Divya Sasidharan Special Guest: Eduardo San Martin Morote In this episode, the panel talks with Eduardo San Martin Morote who is a member of the Vue.js team, a speaker, and trainer who currently resides in France. The panelists and Eduardo talk about developing games, coding, WebAssembly, C++, Vue, Angular, memory management, and much more! Check it out! Show Topics: 0:00 – Advertisement – Kendo UI 0:33 – Chris: Today’s panel is Joe Eames who organizes many different conferences. 1:09 – Joe: That was long introduction! Hi everyone! I organize an Angular conference, too; it’s very small. 1:26 – Chris: Divya is also on our panel and is an awesome speaker and conference organizer. Our special guest is Eduardo San Martin Morote! 1:55 – Chris: Actually it’s good that I get your full name. I do speak a little bit of Spanish. 2:17 – Panel goes back-and-forth. 2:33 – Guest: It was good and sounded like American Spanish. 2:47 – Chris: This is about Eduardo and not my Spanish. You used to be a game developer? 3:08 – Guest. 3:17 – Chris: You wrote a lot of C++? 3:20 – Guest: Yep! 3:22 – Chris. 3:50 – Guest: It’s optimized – you can handle 1 million requests per second – but that doesn’t happen unless it’s a huge organization. 4:24 – Chris: Can you talk about C++? Compare it to JavaScript? 4:37 – Joe talks about transferring from JavaScript to C++. 4:48 – Guest: I am an instructor, too, and teach Vue.js to people. The thing to me is the variable scoping of functions. 5:50 – Chris: Variable scoping – let’s not get into too much detail, cause we are an audio medium. 6:10 – Guest: When you look at the syntax and create classes with JavaScript...I think C++ has always had classes from the beginning. 6:58 – Chris: I used to write things back in the day with C++. I remember some features that were added later that I never got to take advantage of. I can’t remember what they were. I thought classes were one of those things. It won’t be a fruitful line of discussion cause I would be guessing. Chris: What’s different about C++ is that the types are more important? 7:57 – Guest: It’s not that it’s important it’s necessary. 8:27 – Guest: Pointers are an integer that... 8:47 – Guest continues. 8:52 – Chris: In C++ when you say memory management you are... 9:23 – Guest talks about integers, JavaScript, memory, C++, and building games! Check out this discussion here! 11:00 – Panelist talks about web assembly and asks a question. 11:23 – Guest: You will always have...the thing is that you are always getting the most out of the hardware. Computers keep getting faster and faster and people are building games with more effects. 11:53 – (Guest continues): Native video games will always be a step ahead of what web assembly can achieve. 12:50 – Have you heard of Blazor (from Microsoft)? (No.) You write it all in C#. Panel talks about Silver Light. 13:57 – Chris: What is different about web assembly compared to trans-piled to JS languages that are basically Ruby. That compile to JavaScript – you don’t have to write the JavaScript (it’s basically Ruby) and your browser will interpret the JavaScript. 14:42 – Divya: Doesn’t it run on the GPU? That it runs on the graphic card? 14:55 – Chris: It works at a very low-level. Take any language and have the same low access that languages do (low as safely as possible) in the browser b/c there is still security concerns. 15:27 – Guest. 15:43 – Chris: What if I am using Canvas? 15:54 – Guest: ...the logic of your game will be faster. 16:20 – Chris: You have more fine-grained control? And you can control the speed of operations? 16:25 – Guest: You should be able to. If you are using a program like C++... 17:02 – Chris: I don’t know this...I know that JavaScript is an interpretive language you read it from top to bottom... 17:25 – Panel: Can JavaScript read from top to bottom? I thought you had to see the entire thing? Correct me if I am wrong? 17:45 – Chris: Yeah, yeah – absolutely. 17:52 – Panel: I think that’s roughly accurate. We are way off topic! 18:21 – Chris: Would it be accurate (since we aren’t all experts), but it sounds like web assembly is that it does work on a lower level than JavaScript, so it’s possible to achieve optimizations that wouldn’t be possible with JavaScript. Is that true? 18:58 – Divya: I think you could say that...there is an article by Lin Clark that you should check out! 19:37 – Panel: See link to show notes to find article and here! 19:48 – Chris: What got you started into web development? Why no longer game development? 20:02 – Guest: When I started coding at 13-14 years old. It’s funny b/c at 15 years old I was coding and I didn’t even know that I was doing it. 22:41 – Chris: Toxic like...? 22:50 – Guest: Before I was thinking of the long hours and people were working too much, and not getting the recognition that they deserve. It was toxic, and it was a diverse environment. I realized that diversity is very important. The field is changing, but that’s why. 23:42 – Chris. 23:52 – Chris: Something else, it sounds like more familiar with C++ is TypeScript. Talk about that please? 24:17 – Guest: What got me into it were the generic types. 24:30 – Chris: What is a generic? 24:44 – Guest talks about generics. He mentions integers and other terms. 25:30 – Panel helps to clarify about generics, too. 27:08 – Panel: I got into generics when... Panel: Did you get into generics around the same time as C++? 27:27 – Guest. 28:00 – Panel: Where I see generics being used is with RJS. 28:33 – Advertisement – Get A Coder Job! 29:15 – Chris: What is the point? 29:19 – Guest: I think there are many points of view with this. When I build my libraries... 31:37 – Chris: You said that in VS code but I can get that in JavaScript. What is the extra advantage of using TypeScript on top of that? 32:00 – Guest. 32:14 – Chris: Let’s say I ignore the auto-completion, I type quickly – would TypeScript give me a warning? 32:31 – Guest: Yes that is true. If you use it with JavaScript you probably won’t have an error. 33:05 – Chris: A compile time... You mentioned that you could enable some of these checks in JavaScript. How do you do that? Say you have an editor like VS Code, but can actually when there is a potential error? 33:47 – Guest: For a project you have to create a... 34:20 – Chris asks a question. 34:28 – Guest: Yes, I think it does. Pretty sure it does. 34:37 – Chris and Guest go back-and-forth. 35:05 – Chris: See Show Notes for TS Config. 35:10 – Panel. 35:53 – Chris: If they choose not to use TypeScript what are the downsides? 36:05 – Panel talks about his experience and why people might not use TypeScript. He also mentioned CoffeeScript, C#, and JavaScript. He gives an analogy of riding a motorcycle and a truck. 38:04 – Panelist continues. He says that people love the freedom of JavaScript. 39:23 – Chris: If most of your bugs aren’t being caught by... 40:00 – Panel: Something that looks and sees and fits super well doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. A big project is totally different. When you dip your toe in the water it might be more overhead that you don’t’ need. You have to think about the smaller / larger cases. I think that’s why Vue is getting a lot of popularity. 41:15 – Chris: I don’t think I have found anyone coming from JavaScript that say that TypeScript is not worth it. 41:41 – Guest: I like TypeScript I don’t like writing applications in TypeScript. I like writing my libraries somewhere else. The flexibility that you have in JavaScript helps a lot. I don’t like my components to be typed. I do like having... 42:27 – Guest continues. 43:35 – Chris: Why is it different bad or different good? 43:40 – Guest: It’s bad. 43:53 – Chris: What hurts your development? 44:00 – Guest: You get typing errors. The guest gives a specific example. 45:11 – Chris: It sounds like with applications you are doing more proto typing and changing requirements. Making the types really strict and specific can really hurt you? 45:39 – Guest: That’s better. 45:44 – Chris asks another question. 46:00 – Panel: That’s mostly true. 46:13 – Chris: Types can make some refractors easier, but overall a lot of refractors are going to take longer with TypeScript. At least with your application - say it’s organized in both cases. 46:55 – Chris: One more thing about TypeScript – some people (if not coming from C# or C++) I have found that people are spending a lot of time (making sure the typing is working really well) rather than writing unit tests and stuff like that. There is an opportunity cost there. Try TypeScript – it might be for you! 48:10 – Panel: As the team grows so do the benefits! 48:20 – Chris: Anything else? Where can people find you? 48:24 – Guest: I am giving a workshop in Toronto in November! 48:54 – Guest: Twitter! 49:40 – Advertisement – Fresh Books! DEVCHAT code. 30-day trial. Links: Vue React JavaScript C# C++ C++ Programming / Memory Management Angular Blazor JavaScript DevChat TV Graph QL WebAssembly VuePress HACKS TypeScript: Generics Generic Types TypeScript: TS Config.json VS CODE CoffeeScript Opinion – “In Praise of Mediocrity” by Tim Wu GitHub: Vue-Cli-Plugin_Electron-Builder Eduardo’s GitHub Eduardo’s Twitter Eduardo’s Code Mentor Eduardo’s Medium Eduardo’s Trello Sponsors: Fresh Books Cache Fly Kendo UI Get A Coder Job! Picks: Joe Framework Summit Videos on Youtube - Coming soon. Divya Lin Clark Cartoons In Praise of Mediocrity Chris Vue CLI Plugins Electron Builder Read nooks Eduardo Remote work due to traveling

Panel: Chris Fritz Joe Eames Divya Sasidharan Special Guest: Eduardo San Martin Morote In this episode, the panel talks with Eduardo San Martin Morote who is a member of the Vue.js team, a speaker, and trainer who currently resides in France. The panelists and Eduardo talk about developing games, coding, WebAssembly, C++, Vue, Angular, memory management, and much more! Check it out! Show Topics: 0:00 – Advertisement – Kendo UI 0:33 – Chris: Today’s panel is Joe Eames who organizes many different conferences. 1:09 – Joe: That was long introduction! Hi everyone! I organize an Angular conference, too; it’s very small. 1:26 – Chris: Divya is also on our panel and is an awesome speaker and conference organizer. Our special guest is Eduardo San Martin Morote! 1:55 – Chris: Actually it’s good that I get your full name. I do speak a little bit of Spanish. 2:17 – Panel goes back-and-forth. 2:33 – Guest: It was good and sounded like American Spanish. 2:47 – Chris: This is about Eduardo and not my Spanish. You used to be a game developer? 3:08 – Guest. 3:17 – Chris: You wrote a lot of C++? 3:20 – Guest: Yep! 3:22 – Chris. 3:50 – Guest: It’s optimized – you can handle 1 million requests per second – but that doesn’t happen unless it’s a huge organization. 4:24 – Chris: Can you talk about C++? Compare it to JavaScript? 4:37 – Joe talks about transferring from JavaScript to C++. 4:48 – Guest: I am an instructor, too, and teach Vue.js to people. The thing to me is the variable scoping of functions. 5:50 – Chris: Variable scoping – let’s not get into too much detail, cause we are an audio medium. 6:10 – Guest: When you look at the syntax and create classes with JavaScript...I think C++ has always had classes from the beginning. 6:58 – Chris: I used to write things back in the day with C++. I remember some features that were added later that I never got to take advantage of. I can’t remember what they were. I thought classes were one of those things. It won’t be a fruitful line of discussion cause I would be guessing. Chris: What’s different about C++ is that the types are more important? 7:57 – Guest: It’s not that it’s important it’s necessary. 8:27 – Guest: Pointers are an integer that... 8:47 – Guest continues. 8:52 – Chris: In C++ when you say memory management you are... 9:23 – Guest talks about integers, JavaScript, memory, C++, and building games! Check out this discussion here! 11:00 – Panelist talks about web assembly and asks a question. 11:23 – Guest: You will always have...the thing is that you are always getting the most out of the hardware. Computers keep getting faster and faster and people are building games with more effects. 11:53 – (Guest continues): Native video games will always be a step ahead of what web assembly can achieve. 12:50 – Have you heard of Blazor (from Microsoft)? (No.) You write it all in C#. Panel talks about Silver Light. 13:57 – Chris: What is different about web assembly compared to trans-piled to JS languages that are basically Ruby. That compile to JavaScript – you don’t have to write the JavaScript (it’s basically Ruby) and your browser will interpret the JavaScript. 14:42 – Divya: Doesn’t it run on the GPU? That it runs on the graphic card? 14:55 – Chris: It works at a very low-level. Take any language and have the same low access that languages do (low as safely as possible) in the browser b/c there is still security concerns. 15:27 – Guest. 15:43 – Chris: What if I am using Canvas? 15:54 – Guest: ...the logic of your game will be faster. 16:20 – Chris: You have more fine-grained control? And you can control the speed of operations? 16:25 – Guest: You should be able to. If you are using a program like C++... 17:02 – Chris: I don’t know this...I know that JavaScript is an interpretive language you read it from top to bottom... 17:25 – Panel: Can JavaScript read from top to bottom? I thought you had to see the entire thing? Correct me if I am wrong? 17:45 – Chris: Yeah, yeah – absolutely. 17:52 – Panel: I think that’s roughly accurate. We are way off topic! 18:21 – Chris: Would it be accurate (since we aren’t all experts), but it sounds like web assembly is that it does work on a lower level than JavaScript, so it’s possible to achieve optimizations that wouldn’t be possible with JavaScript. Is that true? 18:58 – Divya: I think you could say that...there is an article by Lin Clark that you should check out! 19:37 – Panel: See link to show notes to find article and here! 19:48 – Chris: What got you started into web development? Why no longer game development? 20:02 – Guest: When I started coding at 13-14 years old. It’s funny b/c at 15 years old I was coding and I didn’t even know that I was doing it. 22:41 – Chris: Toxic like...? 22:50 – Guest: Before I was thinking of the long hours and people were working too much, and not getting the recognition that they deserve. It was toxic, and it was a diverse environment. I realized that diversity is very important. The field is changing, but that’s why. 23:42 – Chris. 23:52 – Chris: Something else, it sounds like more familiar with C++ is TypeScript. Talk about that please? 24:17 – Guest: What got me into it were the generic types. 24:30 – Chris: What is a generic? 24:44 – Guest talks about generics. He mentions integers and other terms. 25:30 – Panel helps to clarify about generics, too. 27:08 – Panel: I got into generics when... Panel: Did you get into generics around the same time as C++? 27:27 – Guest. 28:00 – Panel: Where I see generics being used is with RJS. 28:33 – Advertisement – Get A Coder Job! 29:15 – Chris: What is the point? 29:19 – Guest: I think there are many points of view with this. When I build my libraries... 31:37 – Chris: You said that in VS code but I can get that in JavaScript. What is the extra advantage of using TypeScript on top of that? 32:00 – Guest. 32:14 – Chris: Let’s say I ignore the auto-completion, I type quickly – would TypeScript give me a warning? 32:31 – Guest: Yes that is true. If you use it with JavaScript you probably won’t have an error. 33:05 – Chris: A compile time... You mentioned that you could enable some of these checks in JavaScript. How do you do that? Say you have an editor like VS Code, but can actually when there is a potential error? 33:47 – Guest: For a project you have to create a... 34:20 – Chris asks a question. 34:28 – Guest: Yes, I think it does. Pretty sure it does. 34:37 – Chris and Guest go back-and-forth. 35:05 – Chris: See Show Notes for TS Config. 35:10 – Panel. 35:53 – Chris: If they choose not to use TypeScript what are the downsides? 36:05 – Panel talks about his experience and why people might not use TypeScript. He also mentioned CoffeeScript, C#, and JavaScript. He gives an analogy of riding a motorcycle and a truck. 38:04 – Panelist continues. He says that people love the freedom of JavaScript. 39:23 – Chris: If most of your bugs aren’t being caught by... 40:00 – Panel: Something that looks and sees and fits super well doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. A big project is totally different. When you dip your toe in the water it might be more overhead that you don’t’ need. You have to think about the smaller / larger cases. I think that’s why Vue is getting a lot of popularity. 41:15 – Chris: I don’t think I have found anyone coming from JavaScript that say that TypeScript is not worth it. 41:41 – Guest: I like TypeScript I don’t like writing applications in TypeScript. I like writing my libraries somewhere else. The flexibility that you have in JavaScript helps a lot. I don’t like my components to be typed. I do like having... 42:27 – Guest continues. 43:35 – Chris: Why is it different bad or different good? 43:40 – Guest: It’s bad. 43:53 – Chris: What hurts your development? 44:00 – Guest: You get typing errors. The guest gives a specific example. 45:11 – Chris: It sounds like with applications you are doing more proto typing and changing requirements. Making the types really strict and specific can really hurt you? 45:39 – Guest: That’s better. 45:44 – Chris asks another question. 46:00 – Panel: That’s mostly true. 46:13 – Chris: Types can make some refractors easier, but overall a lot of refractors are going to take longer with TypeScript. At least with your application - say it’s organized in both cases. 46:55 – Chris: One more thing about TypeScript – some people (if not coming from C# or C++) I have found that people are spending a lot of time (making sure the typing is working really well) rather than writing unit tests and stuff like that. There is an opportunity cost there. Try TypeScript – it might be for you! 48:10 – Panel: As the team grows so do the benefits! 48:20 – Chris: Anything else? Where can people find you? 48:24 – Guest: I am giving a workshop in Toronto in November! 48:54 – Guest: Twitter! 49:40 – Advertisement – Fresh Books! DEVCHAT code. 30-day trial. Links: Vue React JavaScript C# C++ C++ Programming / Memory Management Angular Blazor JavaScript DevChat TV Graph QL WebAssembly VuePress HACKS TypeScript: Generics Generic Types TypeScript: TS Config.json VS CODE CoffeeScript Opinion – “In Praise of Mediocrity” by Tim Wu GitHub: Vue-Cli-Plugin_Electron-Builder Eduardo’s GitHub Eduardo’s Twitter Eduardo’s Code Mentor Eduardo’s Medium Eduardo’s Trello Sponsors: Fresh Books Cache Fly Kendo UI Get A Coder Job! Picks: Joe Framework Summit Videos on Youtube - Coming soon. Divya Lin Clark Cartoons In Praise of Mediocrity Chris Vue CLI Plugins Electron Builder Read nooks Eduardo Remote work due to traveling

  Jeff Bunn, lawyer, wellness expert and owner of the Mindful Law Coaching and Consulting Group, presents the business case for investing in attorney wellness. As he sits down with ALPS Executive Vice President, Chris Newbold, Jeff lays out why making mindfulness a priority in the legal profession makes sense not just from the health standpoint of health, but also the economics of the practice of law. To learn more about all areas of attorney wellness, visit the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being's Resource Page, featuring the report and more information on what is happening in your state. ALPS In Brief, The ALPS Risk Management Podcast, is usually hosted by ALPS Risk Manager, Mark Bassingthwaighte. This episode is hosted by Chris Newbold, ALPS Executive Vice President. Transcript: CHRIS: All right. Welcome. This is Chris Newbold. Welcome to another version of the ALPS podcast ALPS in Brief. I'm sitting here in downtown Chicago with one of the experts in the field of wellness, Jeff Bunn, who is the owner of the Mindful Law Coaching and Consulting Group. Had a chance to meet Jeff a few weeks ago and he's doing some wonderful work in the field. Today we're going to talk about the business case for wellness and why that makes good sense for firms, law firms, and the legal profession in general. Maybe what we'll do is start, Jeff, by just having you just introduce yourself and what gives you an interest in this particular area. I know you've had a distinguished legal career as well. Maybe just a little context on who you are. JEFF: Absolutely. I'd be happy. Thanks very much for inviting me, Chris. It's a delight to speak with you. My focus is really mindfulness, which is a little piece of the wellness pie, if you will. I happen to think it's a great and very important issue. It's an issue that gets a lot of play, a lot of thought, a lot of curiosity. My story very briefly, I started ... I used to be like your Type A trial guy, long distance running. I was walking the dog one day, slipped on some black ice, got my knee scoped, and long story short couldn't run anymore. I was looking for something that was a low impact, no impact alternative to running. Little did I realize that I used to go out ... When I talk about running I'm talking about an hour or two hours kind of thing. It was meditation for me. What I got into, because of my injury, was yoga. A lot of the men and women that I met practicing yoga talk about not only the poses and the practice but also other things that are more spiritual. I just found that that kind of resonated for me. I took a training session, a meditation training session that is, and I just got into it. Now I'm not a proselytizer. I'm not out there banging the drum for being a spiritual guru. Quite to the contrary, I think that there are a lot of aspects of mindfulness, which is a piece of a larger tradition, like the Buddhist tradition in particular, that I think can be ... It's not an all or nothing proposition as a lot of people, men and women who I respect, feel a great deal of affection for and know. They're kind of an all or nothing ... You're either all in or you're not. I get that. I understand it but I do believe that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There are aspects of that faith or spiritual practice, Buddhism, mindfulness in particular, that can have a business application. My saying is, which I ripped off from Dan Harris who is a great guy, is a news anchor that you or some of your listeners may know of, also the author of a great book, 10% Happier. It's an old book now. He's written more recently. It's about mindfulness and how it changed him. Dan came up with a description of what is mindfulness? Well, if you ask 50 different people you're going to get 50 different definitions. He came up with a great soundbite that just works for me, "Simple, secular, scientific". That's really what it is. To me, it's brain training. Mindfulness, that aspect of a broader practice, can be segmented, can be applied to the business world in terms of helping us focus our attention, prioritize our distractions, and the like. CHRIS: That's the key to it then is the ability? I mean, obviously we know that most lawyers in practice are go, go, go, busy, busy, busy, right? JEFF: Yup. Yup. CHRIS: The value proposition of mindfulness comes in where? JEFF: I think in terms of being able to again focus our attention and then prioritize distractions. There are distractions like emails, telephone calls, partners hanging out with a cup of coffee in the doorway wanting to talk about whatever. Yet we have a filing that we have to get done by such and such a time. Or we have a meeting coming up in 20 minutes and we need to think about that. Or a phone call or what have you. I think that there are a lot of ... I think of it in terms of physical fitness and mental fitness. Everybody gets the idea of physical fitness now. As employee benefits go it's not a stretch at all to have firms or businesses help their employees deal with the ... They'll make contributions towards their monthly gym dues or what have you. Well, let's start taking care of our minds as well as our bodies. I think if you think of mindfulness as not just vague woo woo kind of thing but actually very specific brain training. Attention, prioritizing distractions ... The distractions will come but if one learns to focus one's attention in the midst of all the distractions that come that's going to make you a better lawyer. It'll make you a better professional. Therefore, I think it has ... Those practices, while it might not seem obvious, have an application in the business world. CHRIS: Yeah. We had a chance to be on a panel a couple of weeks ago. I think you've been able to crystallize as succinctly as I've been able to hear it about just the value of mindfulness and the value that it can bring ... If I'm a senior partner at a law firm build the case for me for why this is a good path to pursue. Often times we hear wellness and we think, "Oh, somebody is taking a two hour lunch," which for a lot of senior partners means that's less billable hours, right? JEFF: Yeah. CHRIS: It's a little bit of a ... I think you've been able to turn it on its head a little bit and say, "There are some real definitive business case elements to thinking about wellness, thinking about mindfulness." I'd love for you to present that for our audience. JEFF: Sure. I'd be happy to do that. It really has been a part of my journey. If I was having a conversation with you and you'd ask me, "What is mindfulness?" I'd start talking to you about what mindfulness is but in your mind you could just see people's eyes glaze over. They're just thinking it's all woo woo and, "Oh, Jeff has lost it. He's gone around the bend." I get that. It was very frustrating at first because I felt like I was banging my head against the wall trying to convince people of something that they were disinclined to believe. Then I started thinking, you know, if you can change the conversation ... Don't talk about something that whoever you're speaking to may think of as woo woo, as something vague and ill-defined with a lot of negative connotations. Let's talk about things that we do understand that have real meaning for us. That's how I started thinking about is there such a thing as a business case for mindfulness. I think there is. As I've thought about it I've come up with ... There are five areas that I touched upon that I alluded to when you and I last met ... I'm sure there are more. It just requires more thought. Just knocking them off and here I'm going to call myself out here, I better remember this, recruiting, retention, insurance costs, CLE costs, and basically productivity, which kind of ties all those together. I think in terms of business, hard dollars, the idea of recruiting younger men and women. How does one law firm stand out from the crowd? How does one distinguish one's self? If a recruiter is able to say, "We value the minds of the men and women who work for us, old and young, and we put our money where our mouth is" that's going to help you tell a story that's going to hopefully help you recruit the best and the brightest to your firm. CHRIS: Particularly with this generation, right? JEFF: Absolutely. CHRIS: One that's I think coming into the legal profession with a sense of, "Obviously I want to do incredible work as a new lawyer but I also want to maintain a better work/life balance." JEFF: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I have said and I still maintain that a law firm's greatest asset is its lawyer's minds. If you can begin to make a case, a real case, not just lip service, but a real case that we value our lawyer's minds, we want to protect them and the way we protect them is help them be happier, help them live a life that's more fulfilling, then that's a good thing for them and it's good for us as well, which really gets to the idea of retention. If men and women who are at a law firm five, six, seven years out instead of saying, "I'm going to go in-house. I'm going to go do something else. I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that, but I'm done doing this, the law firm thing." Well, what a cost. The cost to the law firm of replacing the talent is huge. CHRIS: Huge. JEFF: It's huge. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. You lose in terms of continuity, of service to clients. You lose potentially the business of some clients. There's just nothing good I would submit that accrues to a law firm by virtue of a departure of a seasoned professional. I think it behooves a law firm to do what it can to help keep the men and women it has been developing. Recruiting is a big issue but retention I think is a huge issue. I think also insurance costs and kudos to ALPS for recognizing that. I think that both in the area of health costs and perhaps professional liability costs it can be having a real committed, defined program can help deal with both health costs and professional liability costs. Very quickly on the health thing. One might question, "How does taking care of your mind translate into benefits that can accrue to you physically? To your body?" What I mentioned in the talk that you and I participated in recently was a Wall Street Journal article that was two or three weeks ago. Maybe a month at best. That was talking about mindfulness app developers that have begun the process of applying through the FDA for approval of some of their apps as medical devices. Because, now we get into the science that I won't bore you or your listeners with now, the science behind all of this ... If you go to Aetna is a big company that has embraced mindfulness. If you have any interest at all go to their website. Aetna's got a great ... CHRIS: Scientific studies are clearly there now. JEFF: Big time. Big time. On the subject of science too I'm a little bit off-topic here but I'll go there, the idea of neuroplasticity. Relevance for younger men and women in terms of recruiting and retention that's I think something that firms need to pay attention to but what about their older people? People like me? CHRIS: Yeah. JEFF: Why would I care? Well, forget about me but just as an example as a human being who is 65 years old, neuroplasticity, which has driven a lot of the science and a lot of studies, is really the answer. The concept behind neuroplasticity is that regardless of one's age, it's not just babies, it can be 65 year old people, we can rewire our brains. We can learn new things. The brain is a live, malleable, plastic thing. There are good reasons why even older people can and should engage in mindfulness because it relates to neuroplasticity and the ability to learn. Again, back to ... CHRIS: CLE and then productivity. JEFF: Right. Now we've got CLE and productivity. CLE, a lot of states have started ... Well, there are at least a handful, maybe 10, states now that have adopted ABA standards. The ABA did a great service to our profession by appointing the National Task Force on Wellbeing, which authored a report. It's a lengthy report, as you know very well. 70-ish pages including the appendices. It's a great read, by the way. I heartily commend it to anybody who is interested in the topic. Apropos of that task force findings there have been recent changes recommended, not yet adopted by all states but it's just a matter of time, it will be, that include among CLE a requirement that men and women in the legal profession study programs that are either mental health, substance abuse, diversity and inclusion. I would suggest to you that I think in terms of ... Those are costs that are typically borne by a law firm that instituting a program will help a firm qualify and train their people in that area. All of which gets to the issue of productivity, which just makes people who are happier and are better balanced work better. Not longer. The billable hour is still with us. There's going to be plenty of emphasis placed on that by the business people but allowing and putting into place programs that help our men and women work better as opposed to longer ... CHRIS: There's no doubt that to be a good lawyer one has to be a healthy lawyer, right? The more that we encourage those types of cultures I think the more that we're going to see the economic return of that. JEFF: Absolutely. Just in conclusion, it occurs to me ... I think I mentioned this too earlier that I think the airlines really get it right when we all fly for business or pleasure and part of the opening instructions are always, "If in the unlikely event of a water landing or whatever take care of yourself first. Put your mask on first and then take care of other people." CHRIS: Yeah. JEFF: Same concept applies to lawyers. If we learn to take care of ourselves, physically and mentally, we'll do a better job for our clients. CHRIS: Awesome. Well, Jeff, if people want to get a hold of you and want to talk a little bit more about the mindfulness or the wellness things that you are working on how can they reach you? JEFF: Love to do that. Thank you for asking. Probably the best way is to deal with my email address. Right now it's J Bunn Law, J B-U-N-N, Law at Gmail dot com. Just bang me out an email. Whatever is on your mind. I obviously like to talk about this stuff. I'd be delighted to do just that. CHRIS: Good. Well, thank you, Jeff. Thank you listeners. Again, if you have any topics of interest that you'd like us to focus on an upcoming podcast please let us know. Thank you. JEFF: Chris, thanks. Okay.   Jeffrey H. Bunn is a retired litigation attorney, who practiced in both State and Federal courts for nearly 40 years, and was previously member of a three-person Management Committee for a Chicago law firm. “I'm one of us. I've represented many different clients in a variety of civil matters, was a former ethics partner and have managed (and been managed by) others. I understand how lawyers and law firms operate. I also understand business and business people. And I'm a regular meditator, trained in the vipassana tradition”. Jeff was prior chair of the Chicago Bar Association (“CBA”) Commercial Litigation committee, and more recently, the founder and chair of the CBA committee on Mindfulness and the Law. Jeff was the initial vice-chair of the Lawyers' Assistance Program (“LAP”) Illinois Task Force for Lawyer Well-Being (modeled after the National Task Force that was formed by the American Bar Association (“ABA”), which issued a written Report in late 2017). He has led guided meditation sessions for the American Association of Law Schools (“AALS”), and the State Bar of Nevada. In addition, Jeff has presented on matters concerning the incorporation of mindfulness and meditation into the practice of law for the CBA, Chicago Volunteer Legal Services (“CVLS”) and the National Association of Bar Executives (“NABE”), as well as other professional organizations. Jeff was previous blogger-in-chief of the, “The Mindful Law Guy” blog, and has written a book (Canary In The Coalmine) that is submitted for publication, as well as a screenplay (The Meditation Hesitation Blues), that has been submitted for sale and production.

This is the third of three episodes in which I spoke with Kathy Knecht. Kathy's words are worth listening to. "The important things are always hard," said Kathy. But this episode was not so hard. Check it out and let me know what you think. #independent #politics --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/addyour2cents/support

This episode is the the second in the series of interviews exploring how entrepreneurs scale up their Serviced Accommodation businesses. In this episode Chris interviews Graham Lindley as he talks through moving from being a mobile engineer to forex and crypto trading, and then finding his passion in Serviced Accommodation and Property. Chris and Graham then look at how the journey Graham has been seen him scaling up his Serviced Accommodation business, and how it has happened. Graham is managing director of Prim Short Stays in Nottingham, UK.   Show Notes: The Serviced Accommodation Podcast is a show brought to you by Chris Poulter and Ritchie Mazivanhanga aimed at new and experienced property investors alike. With each show we help you Start, Systemise and Scale your Serviced Accommodation Business. If you would like to ask us a question or discuss anything in this episode, please join The Serviced Accommodation Podcast Community on Facebook, and ask away. To listen to more episodes or get more information go to www.thesapodcast.com. Find out more about Graham’s business here: https://www.primshortstays.com/     Transcription: Chris: Hi, I am Chris. Graham:  And I am Graham. Chris: And welcome to the Serviced Accommodation podcast.   Chris: For continuing our series on scaling up and how to scale up your Serviced Accommodation business successful, today I am going to talk to Graham Lindley. So Graham, thanks for joining us. Graham:  Hi, thanks very much, it’s my pleasure. I have been listening since the beginning, so it’s quite strange to now be inside here. Chris: The strangest thing is when the podcast is released and you sat in your car listening back, and it’s like, that’s my voice. Graham:  Oh really. Chris: Yeah, I am sure. Graham:  I have got all that to look forward to. Chris: You do. Absolutely. So could you give our listeners just a little bit background on yourself, like where you kind of came from, from a profession, and where you are based in the country. Graham:  Okay. I live in Nottingham, being there around eleven years, after growing up in Kent. And I have been an engineer all my life, since I left school, in fact, I started when I was still at school — and that was very good, I enjoyed it very much. I was always in different places, meeting different people, whether a country man or a council or state, I always find a way of getting on with everyone, and really finding ways to help people and being resourceful. And so I was a mobile engineer with my van and that’s what I did. Chris: So when you say engineer; what type of engineering was that? Graham:  So I did security and fire, I guess the technical term would be a technician. In the trade we all call each other engineers. So for the first part I was mostly installing and then transitioned more towards maintenance side of it, so I didn’t really have to call around lots of space and things like that anymore. Chris: No, but at the same time I imagine like, diagnosing and repairing stuff is a lot more difficult than installing in the first place. Graham:  Yeah. Really it was the thing of diagnosing and fault finding was something that I did excel at and that is a matter of just breaking things down and working out process of elimination, really. If you have got a huge fire system of course, a massive factory, with a random fault in it you can just keep breaking the system down into half and then walk out where the fault is and then go to that half and split it again — you know, it is possible. And I think once you get the idea of how to find faults then really you can apply that to anything, and that’s something I had really try and teach my apprentices was, focus very much on the process not on the kind of particulars; if that makes sense. So you can then apply that skill to any system, whether you have seen it or not before — you can compare working parts with non-working parts and just work out where the fault lies. So yeah, that was something I enjoyed doing but it also meant I had more time on the road and a lot of people wouldn’t like that, but for me, if I had to go and help someone on an installation I would really notice actually being on site for ten, twelve hours, something like that, and then a little driving at the side of the day. I had noticed the difference really in the fact that I couldn’t listen to all my podcast in audio but a lot of sites now have banned earphones, so even doing that was impossible. So for years I have been doing the job that I could do and to be honest with you, I had got to the highest point I could without then going more office based or more managerial, and I kind of knew it was something I had always done and so I could do it easily but not necessarily something I always wanted to carry on doing. So I kind of consciously decided to plateau, I guess, and have that quite nice space in the fact that, I was entrusted and I did do a good job and I did the very best I could, but it allowed me to focus a lot of time or mental energy — at least — on other things — my real passions — and that was initially a lot of forex trading, and stocks and shares, crypto, and later I have got into property and that’s when I really found my true passion. So listening to business development podcasts and various audio books, I really started to kind of get an idea that that’s what I wanted to do and it certainly wasn’t going to be carrying on being an engineer, and I couldn’t see myself starting my own business in that field either because it’s quite a mature market and you have to start very small, you know, it would take a good ten years, I think, to start scaling in that industry I was in. So yeah, that’s where property really started to make a lot of send to me. Chris: So when did you first become interested in property then? Graham:  I have always been interested in property: definitely. I mean my dad certainly always was. And I made a big mistake and I bought my first home, it must have been around ’06/’07, I spend a lot of money doing (it out). And then we just moved to Nottingham, we weren’t that familiar with the areas and it turned out to not be a great area and we weren’t very there at all. And we put it on the market and the end we just wanted to get out of there, I mean I briefly consider renting it out but we just wanted to wipe our hands off it, so we sold it for a loss. And then went into renting, supposedly just for six months. And five years, I am (certain), I think (the one after), you know, trying to kick myself away from what the value would have been, what my mortgage would have been if I had put tenants in. So it did turn out to be a really good thing and they do say everything for a reason and certainly I won’t be where I am or living where I am now if I hadn’t made that decision but yeah, in the end it was six years of being in rented — which initially, you know, it was very nice, but once we had started a family and we wanted to settle and I only wanted to focus on the business, it didn’t make much sense. The actual trigger for really deciding to become a property investor and focus some more time on that space was… I guess was really be committed to being a successful-professional forex trader and I was spending a lot of time on self-discipline, on proper strategy — that was my root financial freedom, as I thought. But also the guy, my mentor, the guy that I was learning from, he was maybe thirty-six/thirty-seven, gone fully grey from the stress, sitting in front of six PC monitors for twelve hours a day — you know, it would be a Sunday afternoon; his family would be out, having a barbecue he would be preparing for the markets to open the next day. And I am starting to think, you know, I am not really sure this is the future kind of future I want. And my wife asked me a funny question — she was reading some book — and she said; “what is it you are doing when you lose track of time, because that’s where your true passion is?” And I didn’t much over it, I was just thinking yeah, forex, but only when I am winning, when I am not I am kind of getting up at 01:00 AM to check the yen against the dollar and you know it wasn’t healthy. So we got offered single buy to let property, and at the time I didn’t know about property education, I didn’t know about the courses, and didn’t know a lot really. However, I knew it was something that we wanted to do and we were still at the time, so I was a strange. When I spoke to the broker he said well, there is not many people that don’t own their own home already and they are trying to get into buy to let, in fact, there was only two lenders that would even consider us — Natwest being the one that we went with. And yeah we got offered buy to let, and that was, I nearly bought a dud actually, my whole strategy was going to be buying twenty percent below market value — I think I might have heard something someone was doing — and my way of doing that was going to be finding what had been on Rightmove for the very longest and of course I had been the most desperate, so I am more likely to accept an offer. And I thought I had found a gem and I would start to hold it up in my head that I was going to be buying it at a twenty percent below, I didn’t even consider that you might not want to go for that. But my main concern was why I hadn’t been on the market so long, I really thought it was a Call KA, and you know, I had accepted at face value what the agent was telling me for rental figures. And yeah, I was just putting up the word about, you know, I was speaking to people saying, look, I am going to be going into property, I want to get a buy to let. And having that random conversation with someone he said to me, very randomly, I think there is something going on at Trent bridge cricket ground at the business centre there, I think it was a property event on tonight, you ought to pop along. So I went down to that — and I guess technically that was my first property meeting — but it was out on by state agents and really they were just talking about the state of the property market — this was 2015 — and I found it very interesting. And I just reached out to a guy, he was in a suit, and I said, I am looking at getting into property — I have seen a property I think it’s call KA, I am not sure entirely why it’s still in the market. He said, “you know what, I love looking at property, (focus on viewing), and I am just going to come down and join you, you know, I will just do that”. It really was a nice thing for him to do. And he came down, and he pointed out a lot of defects. And a year later, I found all his notes that he had given me and he was absolutely right and everything he was saying was just… I understand why I would have done very badly if I had went for that. So, well forwards, we got a different property: bought well. And we got quite lucky, we bought one that was (Hecks) house and association, and it was just a matter of treating a state agent professionally as potential business partners almost, if you are buying property you are going into business with that person, so having respect for conversations with them and also involving the when you are doing viewings. And I was doing that and I think we had already kind of made enough to own a place because I am naturally (knee jerk) because of them, and then I thought hang on, let’s just see what else is out there, we went for another viewing, mentioned the (impulse) that we were scaling up and we were going to be buying our portfolio, just telling the agent everything they needed to hear. To then say, I might have something you are going to be interested in, it’s not gone on the market yet but we have just put the sign on the outside and the neighbours asked for a viewing, I am going there now and I said, “I am coming with you.” It was great, (Hecks) housing and association. Fuchsia pink all over. It hasn’t been touched since the seventies, and yeah, very good price. So we had the agreement and principle done, we had the deposit proof of funds on the desk of the agent by 09:00 AM that next morning, they couldn’t really go to market with t at that point, so we didn’t have to complete. And as I understand it was about two hundred investors that are after this (Hecks) housing and association properties, where they are offloading their old stock and buying newer stuff, and so we were very lucky there. So yeah, well forwards, it took a while to get through conveyancing, throughout that whole time I was on eBay and I had gone through every night and buying stuff that I thought I would need for the renovation. I was an engineer, I had a big van, I had tools, and we had the company van as well, so it meant we could quickly — if we sort of (bargain) — go and get stuff. I think the best part was we got a brand new bathroom suite from B&Q, it was the guy that bought it, left it in the garage, didn’t need it. Put it on eBay with a spelling mistake and we got the whole lot for thirteen pound, just amazing. The next first thing we got a second hand kitchen, but it was a high-end kitchen, with grounded worktops, appliances included — that cost £250. And then we sold the old one which was horrible, 1970’a kitchen; we just though you know what, we will try it on Gumtree for a hundred pound, someone bought it. And then we are just going to use it in the garage, you know, art studio, and for them it was perfect. So net it was a hundred and fifty pound grounded worktop kitchen. But at the time I knew, I had no concept of leverage or anything like that, I did all the work myself, so I was working every day and then going to the property at night, working from 05:00/06:00 PM till 10:00 or 11:00 PM — annoying the neighbours — and yeah, it was hard gruelling work. Chris: Was it annoying the neighbours who wanted to buy the property? Graham:  Maybe that’s why they gave me such a hard time. Chris: Possibly. Graham:  No, I was pretty respectful, but it was hard work, and I would probably age myself five years during that process. I got to the point where I was actually resenting the property, I was going in and just feeling empty; it was horrible. My wife thankfully… I just wanted to sell it, it wasn’t even ready and I said look, let’s just put it on the market I have had enough. And we had an agent man that said look, you at ninety-nine percent, just finish it and then we would value it properly. And my wife said look, you didn’t do this to sell it and really after legals, forget home under the armour, when you look at what you are going to make after everything, even though we had only spent maybe four grand (£4,000) and had done everything, and we have made a very nice home for someone. We won’t have made much money at all, it certainly wasn’t worth all that effort I had gone through, and she said look, this isn’t why you did this, it was to start in your property journey so let’s just it, find a tenant. So thankfully we did that, it took us two months, we were very (fassy), more (fassy) than we needed to be, but of course it was our precious first ever property. Chris: Absolutely. Graham:  So we got a couple of teachers and then we went for a year. That was nice actually. And after that whole endeavour, I had totally had enough of properties though, we got tenants in and I was like forget about that for at least a year, let’s see what happens to the market and I will start thinking about it; the (tiling) for next year. And that was my time to really then start getting into forex and really double down and focus very hard. The biggest thing I have got out of that was the self-discipline. My mentor, he did meditate before even looking at any charts in the morning, he was very, very disciplined and focused and so I really kind of started to develop that side of myself, which I had never known before — to be honest with you — and that was really useful. So I was really trying hard to be a very successful forex trader, and I wasn’t losing a lot to be honest with you but I was really trying to hone my skill before putting any significant amount of money in, but whether you are twenty pounds down or twenty grand (£20,000) down, I think once the emotions kick in they are very, very dangerous. So I was just learning to try and separate decision making from emotions. And I think the truth is I wasn’t really enjoying it and my wife asked e the question of; where do you lose track of time the most? And I wanted to answer forex but I didn’t really know the answer. Coincidentally, that night I had seen on meetup.com, a weird thing I had never heard of before, it said property networking event — I was like not really so interested in that but I am quite interested in listening to the guy that retired in his early thirties using other people’s money. I thought well, he is either a corny man or he has got something that I could learn, so let’s go and hear him. And I would never forget, I said to my wife, you know what, it says networking from 09:00, I will be home just after 09:00, I am not interested in all of that. And I went along and it was quite a forced thing, there was the ringing of bell every couple of minutes and making you go and talk to someone else. Chris: Be networking… Graham:  I had never known anything like it, and you know what, I met some really good people, some people that hadn’t gone into property, so I had advice to offer them and people that had been in it twenty years and twenty plus properties, and I loved it, I absolutely loved it. I met some good people, I met a plumber that I was getting on really well with him and you know people have been on these courses and I was arguing with them, you know; why would you do that. When that can be out towards a deposit and they were arguing with me saying well, how long I it going to take you to save another deposit before you can buy another property. And that’s how far detached I was with being a real property investor. But the guy, you know what, the guy spoke — he was good — I wanted to say hi to him, there was a couple of people I wanted to follow up conversation with, afterwards. 11:00 PM we were getting kicked out of the bar, at 11:30 PM we were still kind of raveting on — to be honest with you. And I was really energized, I was buzzing, and I went home and say, I know where my true passion is, I lost track of time and I could have talked all night with those guys, though I have never met before and it was all around property. And I really knew my passion from there on, and in fact, this is it, this is what I am going to be doing, and it was very nice to have that kind of inspiration, if you like. Chris: Yeah, definitely. So you kind of find your direction and in terms of property; and what was it really that attracted you to SA, you know, how did you go from this point where you go right this is what I want to do to actually establishing Serviced Accommodation, would sit you write well? Graham:  There was a guy that actually was doing a thing called Serviced Accommodation, not really heard of but I have heard of Airbnb, so I kind of understood it. We have been doing Airbnb from our spare room at times, it wasn’t something we enjoyed doing, but my grew up in a guest in New York and so for her it was always kind of a dream to go back to that, whereas for me that was just a nightmare that I do lots of strangers in your home and I was just not ever enjoying that, whereas Airbnb can be a bit more picky and choosy, enquiry only, for example, I was travelling a lot for work so we did have women only if we let it out at all while I was away. And so I was exposed to that and then I had met a guy that was doing it more professionally, I just assumed with his own property. And I was aware of this thing that everyone at the time was doing rent-to-rent and HMOs, and it was quite funny actually because I had heard about that when it first… Well, when I first heard about it, it was getting going in London quite big and it was around 2013, and my mind-set is to show mind-set shift, at the time I just thought I went on too late, these people are already doing that, you have to be the first, otherwise, no point. And that’s where my head was out at the time. And a while forwards, years and years, and everyone is talking about rent-to-rent, I am like oh yeah I know what that is. And I don’t really know, I don’t know if it’s arrogant, but I thought I had a brainwave, I thought I had a really good idea that no one else had had, what about if you combine these two strategies: rent-to-rent, but instead of putting HMOs, what about rent-to-rent for Serviced Apartments. And I spoke to someone, I then got to go another couple of networking events and I said to someone, oh I have got this idea and they kind of laughed at me, and they went yeah that’s what everyone is looking to do, I was like oh okay, cool, cool, cool. So that was it. I will go back to an agent I met — the guy who first helped me out with that property I nearly bought — me and him kept in touch, I involved him in the buying of the successful purchase and the renovation, in fact, I invited him around when it was complete so I could show him everything and also he had me help him. He had a couple of offices and I did security lamp, CCTV, that kind of thing, so we got a business relationship going on and so that was good and keeping in touch, and we enjoyed each other’s company. I do remember being at one of his offices and doing a repair, and (seeding) of the Serviced Accommodation thing, I said have you heard of this thing that people are doing and he said that sounds similar to the corporate lets, but you know that sublettings are kind of not allowed and it’s definitely frowned upon, I said oh yeah, I know. But I didn’t really move it forwards from there. Well forwards many months and I get a phone call from him, I was his go to guy I guess and looking back — having now read Daniel Priestley’s book –his key person of influence within anything that was technical. And he had just acquired a block of apartments, just four apartments, and he was going to be giving the block management. And he asked me, he phoned me up, and he said look; what’s going to be my requirement for fire safety? And I said what have you got? And he explained. And I said you know what, it would be easier if I come down and meet you in person. Chris: Of course it will be. I’ll have a look! Graham:  Yeah, brand new renovation in a listed building, not in the market yet, four high-end one bed apartment. I thought yeah, you know what, I am going to pop down. So I went down in the afternoon and I had a look round and it really was stunning — very, very nice, oak everywhere, massive windows; very, very central in Nottingham; fantastic location, and yeah the place was stunning. And I said to him you know what, I am interested. And he said “what do you mean?” Is everything alright Graham? If you didn’t split up with your wife, why do you want a one-bed flat in the centre of the town? I said no, no, no, I am interested in taking the block. And so he kind of looked at me and he… I was a little bit gone out to be honest with you; to let you know no offence, eighteen months ago you were about to buy your first dod property; and now this? I was like yeah, you know, Serviced Accommodation; do remember that thing I was telling you about? So he was the first challenge, to honest with you, and my knee-jack thing was to phone that guy I had met at that very first networking event that was doing that thing called Serviced Accommodation, and he very quickly recognized it as a good opportunity and was right in my house that night. And actually we met with the agent quite quickly afterwards and you know what, he did a very, very good job of… He had been on the courses, he knew what he was doing and it just was getting going and he is very, very prepared, and he did a perfect job of convincing the agent that it was first of all a legitimate thing to be doing with the building but second of all, it was actually the better thing to be doing with that property, it would have worked better as SA a it would have worked under AST, which the owners were looking at. So that was fantastic, you know, the idea was to be doing some form of JV, it didn’t end up working out mostly because the guy really had to focus on his own properties which was quite a sensible thing and that was he advice he had received at the time from his mentor. Now, I also saw the importance of having a mentor, and I wasn’t sure about doing the course, so I bypassed doing the course and I actually reached out to Mark Stokes — at the time he was quite heavily involved in Serviced Accommodation — and I said to him; would you mind mentoring me on the side? And from there that was very useful and I was getting to learn a lot. And the way I have always been is I do real deep dive in any subject. I would never forget; I wanted  to buy s mountain bike, I had spent three months researching, I had to know about every single component, every single (back) on the market, the price points, the pros and cons, everything — and that’s just how I am, and of course then started my journey into Serviced Accommodation really. And it was a bit of a blessing really, the owners weren’t too interested, they (popped) some cash in this big block and their main focus was on their business which needed their attention, so nothing was happening for months actually; however, the agent was fully on board and was representing us, he was the guy selling it to the owners, not us — and so that was very, very useful. Well forwards, I was probably at risk of being the most qualified bystander in all of Serviced Accommodation in the UK and every day I was working towards it, no matter what; whether it was researching, or testing software, or reading books, and I was really focused on business development, I wasn’t using this as a property strategy. And I think, looking back now that was a sensible thing to do and I think that’s possibly not what everyone in the space has done — they have got their single lets, they have got their HMOs, and then they have jumped into Serviced Accommodation as the next best thing to do. And possibly some people might not have the right mind-set around everything when taking that journey; whereas, I was very much focused on, okay we are going to be starting a business here; how do we do this successfully. And yeah, I was using the time very wisely but it took a very long time before we finally got that call the agents saying, “make yourself available 08:00 AM next week.” And Mark was kind enough to join me but it was like Alan Sugar’s boardroom and talking some very big successful guys about (capital allowances), it was a little but intimidating, so I was glad to have a partner by my side. And long story short, we got the block — they didn’t trust us — we had proper business plans and everything, we have done a lot work towards it and they could recognize that. Equally, I recognize that we were taking a chance, we really were. We hit the ground running, we opened up and we were prepared and did everything right, and very quickly we were getting very good reviews and getting a good turnover. And we got offered quite quickly — by the guy we nearly did a JV with — another property. Chris: Yeah, I did say what’s quite interesting there was these three key events which kind of happened prior to getting going which some people would call luck, but I think if you examine closely, it’s not really luck at all, it’s kind of point yourself out there and being in the right place at the right time. The first of all was being saved from buying the (dead, few at first) buy to let property. And you could say yeah, it stroke a lot but at the same time if you hadn’t been in that network building, if you hadn’t put yourself out there you wouldn’t meet the person that you then come along and say, actual you need to worry about this. Similarly with the agent who kind of brought you your first single let property, it was kind of lucky, but again if you hadn’t been there, if you hadn’t been putting yourself out there, talking to the agents, being in that position with then when they said oh yeah, I got this one, you know, you might be interested in, then it would happen. And very similarly with when the block came through; exactly the same situation, if you hadn’t been building that relationship, maintaining that relationship with that person over time then it just never would have come through, really. And I think it just highlights the importance in property, it’s a cliché to say but it’s completely a people business; isn’t it. Graham:  One hundred percent, yeah. Chris: You know it’s not about (a person motto) at all, it’s completely about people. Graham:  Yeah, a hundred percent. Even we didn’t talk about tenants but a big part of my success was is having really good tenants and looking after them. So yeah, it’s definitely a people business. Chris: Yeah, absolutely. So when you kind of started out then, what was this thing that you struggled with the most — do you think? Graham:  Initially, when I was still working, my hand was fun… Chris: Struggle when you were running full properties. Graham:  Full properties and a full time job which was very demanding, there were long-long hours, I was doing sometimes eighty hours a week. A lot of those hours where on the road, I could make phone calls, but my hand was forced quite quickly to get help, so, it was a struggle but it was also what I needed, it was a kind of blessing really. Chris: One of those blessings in disguise is what it’s like because you can’t do everything yourself, you are then forced to kind of leverage early; right. Graham:  Absolutely. So I found a UK based VA, and I was struggling to find one. Again, my wife was instrumental in helping me find my first VA. And she persuaded me to reach out to a contact in London who was growing a multi-million pound, massive, very successful business. And she said, “why don’t you ask Lauren?” And I said well, we are at very different places, I am not really sure he is the best person to ask. But you know what I did; and he said my very-very best PA has left, very annoyingly she has left to have a baby and she has now had a baby and is wanting to start working from home which I can’t do, I need someone in the office in London; and so why don’t I connect you. And I said, thank you very much. And so that was Emma, so Emma joined us very-very early, initially just for a few hours a week, and it was research and it was this and it was that, and quite quickly I got her trained up on some of the software we were using, and it became a more regular position for her, and she enjoyed it. And it was something different for her — she had always been a PA — PA’s are fantastic at organizing things. However, she always wanted to double check everything, which was fine, you know, I was available in the phone most of the time, so having that job and being able to do it quite easily because I had always done it, allowed me to have the mental capacity to say well do this, now do that, and I almost micromanaged but it meant I had someone there available — and that went very well. So that was that was the struggle. I am trying to think of something else but that was probably the main thing at the time. Absolutely. Chris: Yeah, because I mean you were quite well prepared. I love that phrase: “the most qualified bystander” and all of those accommodation. Because you basically spend about a year working on that deal before it came to a (finish). Graham:  Probably a good nine months. And really towards the end actually, certainly by the time mentor, I mean during that process as well we actually bought our first home, so that was going on, I renovated that, I had learned the concepts of leverage and using other people’s time while I was going off at doing what I was good at. And also we had got our second buy to let as well by refinancing the first one with the added value. So by doing all that work myself in the first place, it did build in the value, and so, looking back it was the right thing to do but it’s not something — I am not sure — I would like to do it again, if I am honest. Chris: So the three stages that we talk about like start, systemize, scale, so you obviously got started, it sounds like very early on you had to start leveraging and to leverage you really need the systems in place; don’t you? Graham:  Yeah. Chris: That was absolutely key if you are going to be working with other people, you are not just handing responsibility over to someone, you are putting the systems in place, you are plugging the right people into those systems and then you are kind of monitoring their performance on them. So at what point did you then start scaling the business from these four guaranteed rent properties you have taken on? Graham:  Well, very-very quickly actually, the guy that we nearly did the JV with, he introduced me to a landlord, at the time he was at full capacity himself and this other landlord he needed some investment in the property, he needed furnishing and decorating — nothing too major — but he didn’t have any. And it was his first buy to let, he was a London investor and he had had experience with Serviced Accommodation, so he knew what he wanted to do, and he needed help bringing it to standards which we were in a position to do. However, my whole conversation was around how much rent do you want, and he just didn’t want to do that. So he wanted the reward from Serviced Accommodation, that’s why he wanted to do Serviced Accommodation. So really, we ended up doing management for him, and looking back we did actually set it up perfectly, he was an accountant by trade anyway, and it was a very simple management contract. But yeah with the gentleman’s agreement on the side, you know, of a zero percent loan, so you get going, so that loan was going to get paid back from the income of running it as a Serviced Apartment. Chris: And what party was that to, was that from you to him to get it going or…? Graham:  Yes. Chris: Okay, cool. Graham:  And so, it was very quickly, we were adding some portfolio, I think that was within the first couple of months. In fact, I think we had only just gone live when I first met him, I remember him coming, I did an introduction and showed him around our first block, and we had literally just furnished it and started getting guests at that point, so it was very-very early, we were adding to it. So very quickly, I recognised the importance of systemizing and I knew that was going to be essential. I have got another friend who was local to me in Nottingham, who was growing a very-very successful business completely separate, they are coders, they are in the games industry. But he put a book unto me, The E-myth. For him, as a developer, it’s what he needed to stop developing and look at the high picture, and look at the chaos around him, and starts putting things in order, and from there that’s when his business started getting successful. So he said to me right from the get go, read this book and follow it — and really if you have not read it, it’s about really the franchise model and looking at what’s good about that, lost franchises succeed, most small businesses fail, and the main difference is the fact that franchises are systemized, you are buying a system and that is a set of instructions really. And if you are to break your business down and everything you do in that down into a set of instructions, then you can start to then give those instructions to others. And so I had to do that very early, I had no choice. And that’s where we started to really build our own systems and processes and found our way of doing it. I had someone build me a flow diagram, I showed them everything I was doing, and they build me a flow diagram of — we called it guest work flow — and from initial enquiry all the way through to check out. And you know what, there were so many kind ifs and buts, you know, if it was an Airbnb, can we do this; and if it was a high value (booking), can we do that — and there was a lot of variables. And I also very quickly realized the flow diagram was not the best way of doing it. For example, if a guest and we have to 4.1 in the flow diagram and then no action to take for three months, you know, how are you going to record where they are on that journey and trigger the next action? And so we looked at alternatives and that’s where, really, I started to build something and teach it to Emma and have her run it for me. And so yeah, that was how we got going for the whole systemization. Chris: That’s cool. I think when we started working together; do you remember you have the four properties on the block plus one on the management, and you were going a bit crazy at that point looking (at those) different stuff, where you going to have a look at a hotel when we first had our meeting? Graham:  Yeah. I got to know a property sourcer who is based in Manchester and he had a contact that was struggling with a very small boutique hotel, near Manchester airport. And, I thought yeah, you know; why not? Chris: In fact, it’s a couple of hours journey, yeah, whatever. Graham:  Yeah, sort of that. Don’t worry. He was quite local too, where it was located, and it would have had an office space which was what he needed — so he was going to be my guy on the ground. So there was some logic around it, like teach him the systems and the processes, and actually I was going to be sharing the management with him, and there was that, but also I had started to speak to some large property investors around my area in Nottingham. And one of them had muted the idea of just testing market with twenty-five studio apartments. And so, I was like okay, I need a mentor because my time with Mark is always going to be just three months — that was just to help kick-start me — and that was months previous really. And so at the time I was then thinking I need a mentor. And so, I was just thinking, okay, I need to say yes to everything but I don’t know how I am going to do it; we have got systems but they are not ready for this amount of scale — we can’t go from five to thirty apartments in one hotel. One of which was in Manchester. So I reached out to Chris after listening to the podcast and after hearing him advocate management which by the way really started to recognize the benefits of that. Because everything we were doing was scalable, our systems were scalable, our processes were scalable. But also, I had been advised against taking the block because it was a big risk to take on the liability — you know, for me and my wage, it was more than what I was earning, so if it didn’t work, it was going to be very-very costly, especially after buying my own property. So I did recognize that that sort of things was not scalable. And so management landed in my lap, if you like, and from there I recognized it as being a much more scalable strategy. Yes, we (are making) less per property of course, but yes it was scalable. So my mind was on that, I then was listening to this podcast and I heard about how great management was from you, Chris, I remember I reached out to you and said look, I have ended up doing management and I would like to learn a bit more about it, and also I am not sure I am going to kind of take on all these new properties that are coming my way. So I still remember, it was here in Heathrow actually, first ever board room session with other operators. And the advice was quite strong, Manchester does not sound like a good idea at all. And there was a few red flags around it, which I was maybe glancing over. Chris: Yeah. The key one I remember was that the guy who was still going to be living on site and that to me sounds like an absolute nightmare because when you do management, there is got to be a real clear distinction, what the roles are and who is doing what. If your person is still living on site, then clearly you are going to get involved and basically with everything that you are doing, so that was the biggest one for me. But there are some other ones around it, (not a list of all) like I say, Nottingham to Manchester is not a short journey, it’s not very close and having had experience running hotel before, it’s not very much fun. You are going have to be doing quite a lot of work around it, very hands-on, even hands-off hotels were remarkably hands-on, so there is a lot of stuff to do around there. So I think that was kind of clear, kind of realigning of focus a little bit and obviously you realize that scaling up using the management model was going to be the way to go for you. Now, generally, the challenge with management is… Although the model works brilliantly for you, as a management business; it works brilliantly for like an operator, developer, landlord — at the same time it’s a lot harder to kind of come across the deal; isn’t it. Because you are having to push people a lot out  of their comfort zone to kind of understand how it works, compared to; oh yeah just give me this and that rent each month. Instead of saying well, I am going to manage it for you, it can go up, it can go down, you are probably going to make more money, but at the same time you are then going to be the actual operator, so you have got some liability around that etcetera. Well, like I say that the management model is brilliant, the challenge most people have with scaling that up is; where do I find my clients? So how have you found your clients as you have scaled up the management model? Graham:  Well, it was actually a long while, so although we went from four to five very quickly, going beyond five took a long time and it was — I am trying to think really — it was a random comment on one of the Facebook groups, and it was an operator in London asking for cleaners in Nottingham. And so I reached out then I just asked how I could help, and they explained that they were actually trying to help someone else that was doing rent to rent in Nottingham. And so that’s how I got introduced to another London investor, this time instead of buying property in Nottingham he was renting property in Nottingham to run serviced accommodation. So I met him and he had actually been using another agent and they already had one property of his and then he acquired a second property –giving them the keys — and it had taken a month for not much had happened and he was getting frustrated. He met me on the Saturday, on the Monday we had contracts drawn up and signed, and by Friday we were furnished and live, and Saturday night we got out first guest, so he was very-very happy with that. Chris: No messing around then. Graham:  That’s it just kind of being ready to just absolutely hit the ground running, you know, and I guess that’s where having systems really helps as well; step one do this, step two do that. To be fair, the on boarding process — as I call it — was chaotic, but everything else was just what we were already doing, so that bit was quite easy. It came naturally and I also had people that could do that and I could focus on the on boarding. But yeah, in my mind, probably a bit more chaotic that it should have been and it’s a bit like oh yeah we need to do that definitely. So I was already thinking this needs systemizing. But from there we got to know another operator who was also using another agent, the same other agent, and yeah, they weren’t doing the very best job actually and although they have been growing for about a year on a block of apartments, the actual owner of the apartments haven’t really made much money. And the difference in the way that we structured, you know, complete transparency, and almost an open policy versus the setup he had, it looked like a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, the owner, he was a developer, he wanted to focus on development, he had a team in place to help with the development, although he had given the block to a management agency. A lot of his resources and time was continued to be used on looking after his block, and it’s because the agency was in a completely different part of the country, trying to manage something in Nottingham. Chris: And that’s a fundamental issue with the national management companies; isn’t it? It’s actually very hard to have people on the ground and to have the same level of local knowledge with a local business. Graham:  Yeah, a hundred percent. So issues with cleaner, you need to find a new cleaner (please). You know, light bulbs going in the bedroom, a cleaner can’t reach; do you want us to send the call-out engineer, a hundred and forty pounds, or do you want to go down and sort tell light bulb and you know, it just comes through things like that. And then with the potential, I would say, just lack of clarity around other things as well. I guess my introduction to him was a breath of fresh air for him and it was just what we needed as well, I was already kind of getting to the point where it was going to be handing my (notice in) at work. And so, it all happened together to be honest with you, we went from six properties to me handing in my (notice in) and on boarding another seven properties and it all happened very quickly. From there we also got the second property from the first guy as well. So yeah we were then really putting our systems to the test and on boarding more staff at that point as well, we had separated out the companies of course — operations with the first block and management — and that happened quite a bit earlier actually. Chris: You mentioned like creating your job there, so that was something you have been putting off for a while; what impact do you think that had on your growth? Graham:  Yeah, massive. And I think it changed from; can I do everything? To should I be doing everything? So yes, I could do everything, I could have a full time job but I was at work for twelve to fourteen hours a day and run as successful business because of having the help and people, the very-very good people. Emma by now, by the way you know she had come on to working six hours per day, I think at that point, and she was a very-very high standard, high calibre. Initially her only weakness wasn’t really a weakness, it’s where she has always been a PA and she just want to double check things  and that’s what being a PA is; should I do this, should I do that? And entrusted her, I said look, this is your thing. And I guess for me, going back to the whole fault finding, when things went wrong it wasn’t a matter of like whose fault was it, it was more like well, which bit of this system is broken, and how can we stop that happening again. Chris: I think that’s really critical. Most people when something goes wrong they inclination is to kind of blame someone. My first question is; what didn’t we do which would have stopped this from happening? As opposed to it’s this person’s fault. So if you have a cleaner that doesn’t turn up at your property, for instance, to create that massive problem in an SA business — now, most people turn on to blame the cleaner and go… Graham:  Well, we had it happen. Chris: Yeah, absolutely, and that’s the thing. The correct response to that is okay; what haven’t I done which would have stopped this from happening and it might be that you didn’t have clear enough communication around, when you didn’t give the assistance to make it very-very easy, to see exactly what it is, you didn’t have the confirmations in place so that you knew a hundred percent that they knew about it etcetera. And it’s a very different response, of course, in way that’s kind of a natural because that kind of human nature just wanting to blame someone straight away. But once you kind of take that step back and start looking at things like that, you start developing your business very quickly; don’t you. Graham:  You have got to take responsibility and that’s it, it’s your business, it’s your responsibility, and it’s your fault if something goes wrong like maybe it’s the wrong person role but… Chris: But you appointed them in that role. Graham:  Who appointed them? Chris: It’s definitely your mistake. Graham:  Have you given them clear instructions then ask them to follow them and have they gone against those. And if they have gone against them, is it because you haven’t trained them well enough. So it might be the person but most of the time it’s not, actually. You know, that cleaner that did forget a second time as well, and that’s ends being a (full wave) onto the guest and moving yet if you can; it’s really embarrassing. But yeah we have got much more solid systems around the turnarounds now, things cannot get missed, and if it looks like they may have been missed, we have got four hours warning and everyone in the company is getting alerted to the fact that maybe we have got a cleaner that is not of the cleaning today. And so it’s very-very… Good systems we have got around that and those only come off the back of something going wrong, otherwise we would have just carried on, we (are) just letting them know when their cleans were, without any feedback knowing that they were aware of the cleaning the first place and knowing that they (off from) site. Chris: Yeah, I think that kind of feedback in the business is critical, whether it’s things going wrong, whether it’s listening to your guests, listening to your staff as well, of course, but that feedback is critical to really grow and improve your businesses into. Graham:  Yeah, absolutely. Chris: There is one thing I just wanted to pick up there. And with management you have really got two kind of different (avatars): one is focusing on people within — you might call it the property education community, the people who are kind of active and involved in what we are doing like this — and the other is people who are more kind of traditional landlords and developers. Now, how will your clients spot between those two and how do you find those two different (avatars) to work with? Graham:  Actually, I think the first avatar, as you call it, the guys that are in the industry already, that’s word of mouth, people get to know. And that developer that moved over to us he did a lot of due diligence with us and I think people really trusted him and of course then got his feedback as well — we had done a good job and that did reach other people. And actually coincidentally, that first guy that I was going to be doing a JV with ended up being one of our clients, it was great for us and it was great for him. And that’s what real business is about, it’s creating win wins, and Serviced Accommodation is a win, win, it can be a win for the property owner, a win for the guests — getting much nice accommodation than hotels — and it’s a win for us, as much more it can be a much better cash flow strategy. And that for me is a real win, win and that’s where real business is. And so creating ways for other operators to come to us, to leverage our systems and our team, to then really help them kind of focused on what they want to do — whether it is acquiring more Serviced Apartments or focusing their other businesses or their other property strategies — really by enabling that connection to happen and finding a way that it really will be to the true mutual benefit, that’s where we have grown a lot to be honest with you. So we have had four, I guess… Other operators join us now as clients, which is great. Yeah, working with the landlords is… We don’t really do any marketing, I mean we are getting a big and better name for ourselves now, and so we are becoming the kind of go to guys within Nottingham. So it’s much more about personal connections rather than random marketing to be honest with you. Chris: Yeah. And what has been your experience with the developer market; has that been something hard to break into? Graham:  Yes. Quite often because a lot of developers in Nottingham are building to sell right now, and you can’t blame them with the (passes) they have been getting, and actually if they are building to keep, they are then looking to refinance off the back of that and so it’s more difficult to then convince there lenders that Serviced Accommodation is a legitimate way of kind of having this work. And you see, because we are not offering any sort of guaranteed rents to developers, they really then kind of struggle. So yes, it needs much bigger developers to be honest with you; who don’t need to finance out of the back of each deal and can park some cash, or have got better and bigger relationships with lenders. Chris: Yeah. And if my understanding is right, so you haven’t done any deals with developers outside the property education community, so far, but you have been working on these relationships for a few years now and you have got stuff now coming up the pipeline; is that right. Graham:  Yeah, absolutely. We have got two blocks of sixteen apartments in different areas of the city. Chris: That’s sixteen each block. Graham:  Sixteen each. Yes. And we have got another block coming, it’s really early days but it will be a block of twenty-eight, we will get first (refuse) the number of apartments we would want to take in that block — and again, at a completely different part of the city. And so I think we will definitely be taking fourteen there because of the way he building is split, but we are going to be able to adjust the market there and potentially take more from that point as well, even if some go to (YST). But those relationships take a long time and I think developers will tell you their deals take a long time, a lot longer than they anticipate as well. So whether that’s the acquisition, the legals, or the kind of planning process, or even getting contract as on site to then finishing the site. Everything takes much longer than anticipated. One of those blocks of sixteen was going to be ready before Christmas and it’s isn’t now, here we are in June, six months. So it’s just a couple of weeks away, so we will see on that one. Chris: So it sounds like the kind of process you have gone through scaling up, it has been working with other operators, helping local people who were already involved in SA, and then continuing those relationships of course. But starting to build the relationships with the developers, which is really going to then escalate and take the growth to another level, you know, if you are taking on blocks of sixteen to twenty-eight at a time, as opposed to maybe individual properties at blocks of four/five, that type of thing. Graham:  Yeah, absolutely.  But you see a lot of individual ones as well in much bigger blocks… Chris: More issues around it, isn’t it. (Free holes), neighbours, etcetera. Graham:  Access. And look it is where we are very much found above board and everything is being done right and so, if you are not meant to do it in a big block then just don’t do it, it’s not really worth it. Chris: There enough places out there which you can do it legitimately and it’s not worth the time, or effort, or money, which you are essentially going to waste if someone turns around and says, you can’t do this right. Graham:  Yeah. And look (Riggs) are coming, (Access Riggs) are going to be getting tightened up and you have got to be prepared for that. And I think doing SA where it’s not really allowed is going to be one of the first areas of attention from the authority, so it’s just not worth it. Chris: Brilliant. So you have kind of taken us through the whole journey and show people how you scaled up, which I think would be really useful for people to hear. So what would you say was the most important elements to start scaling successfully? Graham:  Definitely the systems and processes. I mean we were absolutely over (queue), initially, on our processes and our systems. I mean I remember showing someone and he said, “well, you have just got five properties and you are doing all that.” And it’s like yes, but this will handle fifty easily without even thinking twice, and really we just need to plug the staff in. And that really is breaking everything down into like, step one do this, step two do that. And all those variables and having that system in place where we have got accountability within it, we know who has done well and when, so if there was something that’s going wrong, we can go back and just have a look again at the training and so on and so forth. But also if we need to slot more staff in, we have systemized the training now as well, and so we can just add people, (as in when). Emma, she is ops manager now, so she is absolutely full time, plus, plus. Chris: But you say she is ops manager but kind of really, she is more of, almost, general manager (to help you out); isn’t she. She is kind of essentially running the business for you with some oversight from you I would say. Graham:  Yes, certainly more recently. I think initially she came on full time as ops manager but I think… Chris: It’s a role which is developed often, I have been absolutely critical with having one person who has that kind of responsibility for overseeing; right. Graham:  Absolutely. Chris: And it kind of almost started as a PA role and then it evolved into an ops manager and now it has evolved into a kind of general manager. Graham:  Absolutely yeah. So she is handling all the girls: the coms assistants, the bookkeepers. Although I have got a relationship within, they know I am very open, an easy to speak to guy. You know there, I don’t have much to do, if I am to be honest with you. Chris: You are not their line manager. Graham:  I am not their line manager. I mean I have a very much instilled company values of team work and we are all equal. I have taken my cleaners out to dinner, multiple times. We wouldn’t have a successful business if it weren’t for the cleaners doing a very-very good job in turning up. Chris: And most people only appreciate that, when they do a bad job and they see the impact it has on the business. So, it is really-really important when the staff (going well), and to also appreciate the importance they have in the business and then reward that when that’s having it’s impact on what you are doing. Graham:  Yeah. So systems but also the team work, it has been essential. Emma has had, I have asked her what she wanted, and we have created the wall around her family life and requirements. So it meant that she is much happier in her role, she is being more responsibilities all the time, but she is rising to the challenge (at hand); the amount of money she can earn also rises with that. So it is a good thing to have. And really instilling in everyone that if they have got good suggestions, make them, and if it’s an improvement, we are going to implement it across the business. Chris: So kind of feeding on from that; what advice would you give to someone who is scaling up their business? Graham:  I don’t want to keep saying systemizing. Chris: You can keep saying systemizing, that’s absolutely fine. Graham:  Well, how do you systemize? I guess that’s the question. Chris: Yeah. Graham:  It’s teach someone. Even if you have got no one to teach, maybe do a screen recording on your laptop and read out the instructions of what you are doing. Because actually you will find those little bits in your head that you are just doing them without much thought, and maybe you have got three ways of doing the same thing, and it depends which day of the week and what mood you are in, as to the one you are doing. So actually; what criteria would you do this or do that. And when you really break it down, I would say do ten minute videos, I aim to do lots of ten minutes videos and then you can even get a VA off People Per Hour or such like and get them to write a set of instructions from that video. And that’s the start of the systemizing, that’s getting it out of your own head and putting it into a process, do this if that, and so on and so forth. And that’s absolutely essential because if you are going to add staff as you start scaling, they need to know what to do. And so you can then start identifying the higher value stuff and the lower value stuff. You know how Emma is being instructed to leave most of the comms and focus on the high value stuffs, so when we have got guests requesting a late check-out, it’s a science — you go to the cleaners, and you check their schedule, you check the next check-in, and you speak to the guest. And that’s a science where there was great management, maybe that’s a bit more of an art, and that’s high value. Chris: Art-science; isn’t it. Graham:  Yeah. And so that’s a high value task. So we wanted to be able to focus on that without keep getting distracted about having an extra hour in the apartment. Chris: I think when we look at how you have been able to scale up that quickly, I think it has been three elements really, and it’s again the things that we always all about when we talk about leverage it, putting systems in place — and you have clearly had those basically from day one — and getting the right team around it with the right culture and the right attitude, and tell following up with the accountability. And again, a lot of the accountability with what you are doing comes from the systems you have in place: using things like Slack where you can communicate easily with the team, you can also see if something hasn’t been done, if there is a problem, etcetera. So it’s getting all the three elements right, which has allowed you to scale quite quickly; isn’t it? Graham:  Absolutely. Yeah. Definitely. Chris: Brilliant. Well, hopefully that has been very useful for everyone and thank you for joining us today Graham. Graham:  It has been my pleasure. Thank you very much indeed. Chris: Cheers.   Don’t forget to subscribe to the podcast, to hear the latest on Serviced Accommodation. If you are looking to start systemize or scale your serviced accommodation business, visit www.thesapodcast.com to see how we could help you further.    

In this episode of Building Infinite Red, we talk about the importance of education and experience when starting out in software development and how things change when you move from making your products to running your business. From books and online resources to bootcamps and higher education programs, Jamon, Ken, and Todd share their stories, insights, and opinions for every level of professional. Show Links & Resources Lambda School Austin Allred on Twitter Epicodus Airtable Episode Transcript TODD WERTH: Today's topic is education. I actually don't recall what this topic's about. Ken, do you recall? KEN MILLER: Yeah. Well, it's this question that kind of comes up periodically about developers and CS degrees and that kind of thing. I think there was a Twitter thread a little while back in Jamon's feed, because Jamon's feed is the only feed that matters. TODD: That's a fact. Yeah. KEN: Yeah, do you remember who that was, Jamon? JAMON HOLMGREN: Yeah. The question was, "I have 10 years experience developing sites, but I have no formal education. What are your thoughts on experience versus education? Been thinking of getting a front end development tech degree from Treehouse, but I'm not sure if it's worth the time and money." Yeah. That is a question that does come up fairy regularly. KEN: For that specific question, I think the answer is no, it's probably not worth it, right? If you have 10 years of experience, and you're going to go take basically a practical degree, don't bother. JAMON: Right. KEN: But there are definitely nice things about getting a real CS degree, but getting a job is not necessarily the best reason to do it. JAMON: Right. KEN: If that make sense. TODD: I would totally agree with that. Well, just to start out, the three of us, Jamon nor I have finished college, nor do we have any CS degrees. I learned to program on my own when I was a child, probably started when I was 12. And then I started programming professionally when I was about 24, and then I learned basically on the job. Ken went to Harvard and got a CS degree there. Jamon, you are similar to me, right? JAMON: I was pretty similar to you, yeah. TODD: Yeah. So what I usually tell people, A, now, when I'm hiring people and I'm not representative of everyone, so it's quite a bit different, I do a cursory glance of their resume, maybe. That's less relevant to me than what they can do. In my opinion, developers is a portfolio job, which means the work you've done is hugely more important than any kind of education. Now, obviously if you do have a CS degree, I do find people want CS degrees, they understand some concepts that you maybe don't use day-to-day, and when they do come up, they have a much better understanding of that. Sometimes it's easier to teach them new ideas, because they have the analogy in their mind already. So it's definitely worth it. I would say, my short answer and I'd love to expand on this further in this podcast, but my short answer is you need to learn what you need to learn in order to produce work product, which means develop software, develop websites, develop apps. And everyone has a different way of learning. For some people, school is the best way. For me, school always bored the hell out of me to be honest, and it wasn't the best way for me, but there's no exact right way for everyone. It's just however it works best for you. JAMON: Yeah. And I think that part of this is how much access and opportunity you have, because certainly college is one fairly proven path toward gaining an opportunity to access the job market, to get enough skills that you're hireable out of the gate, and then to access the job market and actually get a little bit of exposure, whether it's through an internship or something like that. So that plays into this as well, if your dad was a software engineer or something, and he has contacts that you can talk to and maybe get some opportunities, then maybe you don't need that, maybe you don't need to go down that road. But there are few other factors here as well. Some of them are personal goals, like what type of programming, like Todd was saying, what type of programming you want to do, how much debt you're willing to take on, how much you can take on. And then also, in some cases, very specific cases, the prestige of the university can be a factor because it certainly opens doors for Ken that Todd and I don't have. TODD: I do want to interject real quick before you jump in, Ken. Going to university has many, many benefits that have nothing to do with getting a job, and those are a super valuable if you have the opportunity. They're worth it. But specifically about a job is what I was talking about. KEN: As a life experience, college is great. If you have the opportunity, you should probably do it. Getting a job as a programmer per se is not a good reason to go to college in my opinion. Now, if what you want to do is get a job at Google, or one of the places that is well-known for preferring CS graduates, especially from elite schools, then you should do that, you absolutely should do that. You're going to have a much, much, much harder time doing that. But also, more to the point, Google has I think fairly reasonable case for it in certain ways, because they are actually dealing with the high level intense CS concepts more than your typical programmer job. TODD: Correct. KEN: Now, I think where the problem comes in the market is that if Goggle does it, then we should do the same thing and then we'll be successful like Google. And the vast majority of companies out there do not need that. And I can also definitely tell you, from my own experience, from the people that I've watched, is that getting a CS degree, they're teaching you the fundamentals of how computers work. In Harvard's case especially. They're very much on the theory stuff. But even a more typical CS degree is very much about the background, the hopefully unchanging fundamentals, and not so much how do you design a build system. Todd? TODD: Yeah. I want to rant a little about a CS degree. CS, I'm sure all of you know is computer science. It is really that, it's computer science. Scientists don't make things. They discover things, and they ponder about things. For example, a physicist and a chemist may work together to make some sort of new alloy, but they're not going to design an airplane. That's what engineers do. If you get a computer science degree, you learn the science of computers. You could actually get a computer science degree, and correct me if I'm wrong Ken, and not learn to program at all. KEN: That would be pretty rare. You do have to know some programming in order to do a lot of the things that they teach you- TODD: But you could do like abstract programming that doesn't actually work. Like, say you're developing an algorithm. It's not- KEN: Yeah. I would say that would be pretty atypical, but there's definitely classes that don't require a lot of coding. TODD: I'm exaggerating to make a point. KEN: Some of it is straight up math. Yeah. TODD: Right, which is different than engineering. KEN: Well, and a good engineer should understand the science obviously. Yeah. JAMON: And I think one of the things to know is that, in my career certainly, and I'd like to hear from both you, Todd and Ken, I haven't noticed a huge market difference between the software engineers that I work with that have degrees, versus those that do not. I often don't know which of them have degrees and which do not. It's not always a strong correlation between their ... or it hasn't been a strong correlation in my career with performance. I think there's some characteristics that are positives for people that come from a CS degree background versus others who maybe come from a bootcamp background, or Todd and myself maybe learned out of a book basically and experience, but in my experience it's not something that is ... there may be differences, but they're not significant. TODD: I think it depends on the situation. When you teach people you notice it more. For experienced people, people who have a decade under their belt, no, there's no different. For new people, someone who comes out of school with a CS degree will understand concepts, and I think it's easier to teach them to be honest, in that way. Real quick, I personally started ... well, I started programming privately, but that was just me programming games and that kind of stuff, stuff I enjoyed personally. But professionally, I started building software. So I started out as a builder, a maker, over the years formed myself into an engineer, and then during that, got interested in the CS stuff and learned that stuff too. So I got to the same result, just in a different path. KEN: That's totally true. You can absolutely learn all this stuff on your own later if you're that kind of person. I think what the reliance on CS degrees doesn't really take into account, is that 90% of programming out there is essentially business automation, for a loose definition of business, but it's basically business automation. I mean, yes, okay, there's sort of a sector on high performance computing, or scientific simulations. Honestly, the one that in some ways benefits the most from formal education, believe it or not, is games, because there you need the linear algebra and the harder math, and your performance constraint in ways that mean you're more likely to be coming up with novel algorithms than you are in your typical business program. Jamon? JAMON: It's surprising how rare it is to encounter those types of situations in typical applications, like mobile applications and web. You just don't really run into it. KEN: Right. So, the kind of people who are going to excel at your, like I said, very typical business automation, style programming, user interface design, et cetera, et cetera, are actually going to be people who sometimes were not computer people before, because they're going to have more connection and empathy with the target users. And that ends up making more of a difference to the success of software projects in many cases than your facility with the computer itself. TODD: Yeah. Let me give you a real example from myself, because I started out very practical, and then later got interested in the CS concepts and stuff. Just purely for my own interest and stuff, and that did help to a point in my engineering career, but I did a project circa 2001 or something like that, and we would display, as a website, and we would display a map for the user, and they click somewhere else on the map and we had to calculate, based on the pixel difference between where we knew they were and where they clicked, the difference in direction and distance from the original spot. Now, this required spherical geometry, and the earth actually is not a sphere. It's a little bit like a football actually, to a slight extent. In this case, someone who had a more CS background may have jumped into this easier. I actually had books on my shelf, like college algebra, and college geometry and stuff like that, and I would review these things. And I learned how to do it. It was a successful project and it was very fun, but that's an example because I came from a practical place I had to look that up. Now, on the flip side, I've worked with people with PhDs in computer science, and no offense, bless their hearts, but they would work for two weeks and accomplish literally nothing. And then you'd ask them, "Was that done?" They were like, "I didn't know it was urgent." Well, it was an hour task. That's two weeks ago. And I think they're on a different academic time, because they spent so many years in school, it's just a difference. KEN: Which is, again, not to denigrate the usefulness of them. They're just useful in very specific circumstances and not as general programmers. Jamon? JAMON: I kind of see it as, to use an analogy, like when you're lifting weights, if you lift weights in a way that is very functional, they call it functional, where it's almost like you're lifting a box or ... yes, Todd? TODD: Jamon, for our listeners who may not be familiar with this concept, can you explain what lifting weights is? JAMON: It is this theoretical thing that supposedly some people do. TODD: Can you do it inside of your own home? JAMON: I do now. I built a gym actually. But yes, you lift weights for health. And one of the ideas is that you do this sort of functional strength, where it's something that actually builds up the muscles for lifting boxes, and carrying children, and moving things. So it's very much like you're doing those types of movements, but just with heavier weights. It just makes you stronger in those ways. And then there's other things where you're isolating specific muscles in a way that you would never really do in a day-to-day basis. And university can sometimes be more like that, where you are exercising those muscles, you are making them stronger, but you're not doing it in a way that necessarily replicates what you do in real life. And I think both are necessary. If you just do functional strength training, it will get you so far, but you won't ever hit certain muscles because, like we talked about intense performance or whatever, you might not actually be using those aspects of your brain in a day-to-day basis. But they are good to have for when you need them. So I think that's a decent analogy of what we're talking about here. I think that one of the criticisms that I've had of some of the higher education programs, is that they don't do particularly great job of replicating the real world of what people will actually be doing once they actually get into the job market. You can create a binary tree algorithm, but can you move this button over four pixels to the right? Which is often your first task when you get to work. TODD: Yeah. And I would say that it really depends on the person. In an idea world, if money is no constraint, time is no constraint, yeah, of course I would love to go to university and stuff. But on the flip side, I'm a very practical person and I like to build things, I like to make things. So maybe I went for a few years, but maybe if I would have went that route I wouldn't liked it as much. I would have preferred to just jump in and start getting things done. I think for me ideally was 18, I started doing it, actually doing it for three or four years, and then go to university for maybe two years, and enjoy learning all the concepts I didn't learn. That would have probably been pretty cool for me. JAMON: I realized we're kind of leaning more heavily on the criticism side of this, but one of the criticisms of universities is that they optimize for rewards, like extrinsic rewards. Like, I got this degree, I got this piece of paper, or I did what was necessary to get an A. Where learning to accomplish something to actually expand your mind is a little bit of a different thing. When I started my business I needed to build a website, I had a website to build, and I didn't know how to do it. For me, when I was learning from a book, it was very, very applicable. Like, okay, in order to make a menu, I need to know how to do these things, and it was very, very applicable. Very, very directly applicable. KEN: Well, I'm going to make the positive case ... TODD: Please. KEN: ... for going in and doing it. One is, fair or not, it does open doors. TODD: Correct. KEN: Especially if you're in a good program, but even if you're not, it is used as a hiring filter in a lot of places. I think it's wrong but it's true. That's the very practical sort of level. But to be honest, there's definitely things that I learned there that can save you trouble. I mean, I think they said that what makes a 10x programmer is that they know what not to program. So for example, even the theory class. The theory, computability theory, computational complexity, these sorts of things are more valuable than you might think in certain ways. For example, you're at your start-up. Your boss says, "I want the optimal route to plan on this map. I want to be 100% guaranteed the best route." And you can say, "That's the traveling salesman problem, and it's actually a known hard problem," for example. And it's the kind of thing where it can steer you away from harder problems and towards easier problems. And in engineering frequently what you want to do, you're like, "Let's find a good heuristic instead of trying to solve this optimally." JAMON: It may not give you the answer, but it will give you a framework around the problems that are out there, and the classes of problems that are out there. KEN: Yeah. TODD: Yeah. And I really appreciate that from people who have a higher education than myself. While people were talking, I was thinking of this story. I interviewed for this job, and this guy was asking me technical questions, as they do, and he was a young guy at the time. I was probably 34, he was probably 10 years younger than that or more. And he asked me a question. I don't remember what it was the exact question, but basically he wanted me to accomplish a task, and what he was looking for is how I would technically approach this problem. But I've been an engineer for a long time, and I know what's really important, and I know it makes a 10 times engineer, which is often not actually programing that. So I started off by challenging the fact that he even needed this at all. And logically, he didn't, and he couldn't really explain why he would, so I gave him additional other options that would make this application or this software work much better. Not the answer that he was looking for. But it was the real answer. I used to say a saying all the time. I don't say it much anymore, which is, "There is no code as fast as no code." So in this case, I was just removing his entire problem from him. KEN: I would say it can help you avoid reinventing certain wheels, which might mean that you don't get some amazing solution, because you weren't ignorant enough to know that it couldn't be done. Everyone loves those stories, but 99% of the time that's not how the story goes. And in fact, to the point, I don't know if we're ready to segue into the business conversation we probably we will in a minute, but none of us have any business education. And I'm starting to wonder if it would be worth it to go get like an EMBA or something, so that we're not reinventing so many wheels. I don't know if we're ready for that conversation yet. Jamon, you wanted to say one more thing? JAMON: I have a bunch of other things to say, but I'll intersperse them here. I think that one of the things ... well, Todd actually alluded to this earlier, but the network that you get from going to university for four years with often some of the same people throughout, you get to know them, you do projects together, they have opportunities. A lot of them go on to be quite successful. And being connected to those people in that way is something that lasts for a lifetime. And that's definitely something that should not be undervalued. That's a big advantage, that's something that I did not have. In fact, the only way for me to access a network like that was through ... well, I shouldn't say the only way, but the way that I accessed a network like that was through open source later. TODD: It's true. There's a lot of overeducated crappy engineers doing very well out there. It's true. KEN: It is true. TODD: I mean, it is really true. CHRIS: I was just going to add too, it's fascinating when we have this conversation today. It seems like it's been increasingly becoming more popular to question whether to go to school, or rely upon the tool. So what is it about today that allows us to even question the path forward, that maybe we weren't able to in the past? KEN: We're going to queue that clip from Silicon Valley now. TODD: Yeah. I think it has nothing to do with our particular industry, or development, or any of that stuff. I think it's just because the cost of university education is so extreme right now, that you naturally have to question if it's worth such a huge burden. It wasn't that way for me in the early '90s. I could work and pay for my own college at that time, which I did. That's not possible these days. JAMON: I'm going to agree and disagree with Todd there. I think the cost is definitely a factor, but I also think that this industry is a big factor in that we don't have ... my brother-in-law is a mechanical engineer. He couldn't just go and start mechanical engineering. He can't go out there and just do that. TODD: He could. It's just governed by law. JAMON: Yeah. You have to be a licensed engineer. It's a very- TODD: But there's no reason he couldn't do that if it wasn't for laws. JAMON: There may be a path to becoming a mechanical engineer that doesn't involve university, but it's very hard. I at least know of an architect that did it without going to university and getting a degree. But that is something ... we have a lot of these professional, professions actually have degrees that sort of ... they're barriers to entry. And in order to get through that, the accepted path is to go through universities. Ours does not have that. We can start building websites, or building whatever, just by convincing someone to pay us to do that. KEN: I think there's two points actually. One is part of the disconnect between mechanical engineers and software engineers is that when mechanical engineers fail, people die. JAMON: That's true. KEN: In many cases. That's sometimes true for software engineers too, but it's more true with mechanical engineers. And as a result- JAMON: My brother-in-law works at a plant where if he screws up, there will be hydrogen peroxide blowing miles high in the air. KEN: Yeah. So the stakes are often higher. JAMON: Yes. KEN: But also, if you want to be a serious chemical engineer, there's a lot of capital requirements for any of the things that you're doing, apart from the safety concerns, and that's very real. You're not just going to work on your own because you can't get them, whereas the capital requirements for being a software engineer are extraordinarily low. The access to education materials is extraordinarily high. And you can just try in almost literally anything that you can find out there for education material, you can try with a $500 computer. So there's so many things about the technology world that are in many ways unprecedented, and that's why you're seeing this massive sea change in the economy as it starts to take over more and more of it. And one of our missions here is to help more people in more places be part of that. So getting the message out that although CS degrees are helpful if you have the opportunity, go ahead and do it if it interests you, but it's not necessary if you just want to be part of this. JAMON: Yeah. And one of the things that is very apparent, is that there's a lot more resources available now online for learning. You don't have to go to college to get the education because it's often on YouTube, or you can look through GitHub. There's all these resources, there's online courses. These are things that are very valuable, and they're self-driven. When I first started wanting to learn Objective-C and building iOS apps, I bought an iPad 2 and I went to iTunes U and started watching the Stanford courses on there, and following along with those. So I was able to basically watch Stanford lectures for free, and follow along, and do what they were doing. That was tremendously valuable to me. And all of those resources are very interesting. What's very interesting also is that very few people actually take advantage of this. Everybody with an internet connection essentially has access to these, to the same thing I did. TODD: Which is pretty much everyone in the United States at least. JAMON: Right. And yet, it's a very tiny fracture of a percent that actually take advantage of that. TODD: Well, I would like to, for those of you who have this question and don't have a lot of opportunity for various reasons to go to university, I would give you my kind of recommendation. I forget who said this, I'm not going to attribute it to anyone because I don't remember who it was, but if you want to be a writer, write. If you want to be a poet, write poetry. When you've written a million words, you're a writer. When you've written 100,000 words, you're a writer. You have to write. You'd be amazed how many people want to do something and actually don't do it. In our industry, it's very possible to be a very successful software engineer by just doing it. But even, we mentioned mechanical engineering which does have some legal constraints for sure. But I don't know if anyone's ever seen the movie October Sky. It was in the late '90s. It was about a NASA engineer called Homer Hicksam (Homer Hickam) I think. He was a son of a coal miner and he loved rocket engineering. And he just did it, and he did it, and he did it, and he did it, and eventually without ever having an education, he did it for NASA, and he was a very famous and successful engineer at NASA. So, I don't recommend that route for such things, but it is possible. And I don't care who you are, or what profession you're in, if you just spend a crap load of time doing it, you're going to rise above everyone else. Another great story I have, I read this book. It was about this guy who was really into etymology. Entomology, not etymology which is the study of the origins of words. Entomology, which is the study of insects. He came from a very poor family, and he was in Alabama, and he got into the University of Alabama for biology. I believe he got a scholarship because he couldn't afford it, but the day one he showed up, he went to the head of the biology, the college or probably ... I don't know what it was, but wherever the college of biology is. Ken will correct me. This shows my education here. Anyways, he went up to the head and he said, "For the last two years I've been cataloging the ants of Alabama." And no one had ever done this. So on day one he was put in charge of something very important at the university because of this, simply because he just did it. He didn't ask permission. He just did it. So if you want to become a developer, regardless if you have the opportunity to go to school or not, you just have to start developing. Get into open source, publish stuff, start creating your portfolio and just do it. I'm not going to recommend this at all, but if you dropped out of high school at 16 and started programming and put a lot of work into it, by the time you're 18, 19, you're going to have a high paying job. That's a fact. Don't do that, kids, but- JAMON: Yeah. If Cedric's listening to this, stay in school. TODD: But you totally could do this, but it does require a lot of ... a lot of times people go to the university and those kind of paths because they don't have the kind of internal- KEN: And by the way, if you're that person, you probably already know. TODD: I don't necessarily think so, because- KEN: I mean, if it's flowing out of you so much that you just can't stop doing it basically, that's usually the kind of person who makes it that way. TODD: I agree, but I think- JAMON: Well, that was me at that age for sure. TODD: I think a lot of those people don't know that it's possible, because they don't have an example of it being possible. JAMON: That's exactly right, and that was actually me at that age. At 16 I was coding every day. Every day I would go home and that's what I would do. I mean, I'd do homework on the bus. I didn't do it at home. I coded at home. But I had no role models that were programmers. Well, I had one but he worked in San Francisco and he had been to college, and I thought that was the path. So I didn't really have that sense. And I was doing some pretty complex games and stuff, and figuring things out on my own because I didn't have internet at that time. TODD: Yeah. Well, back in my day I had a book budget, because the only way to learn was from books. There was nothing online, because there wasn't online. I had a book budget where hopefully I could buy a book every couple of months, add to my collection. But anyways, if you get nothing else and you're aspiring to be a developer, I give you permission just to do it. JAMON: Another option is code bootcamps. We actually have at least one, maybe a few others that have been to bootcamps here at Infinite Red, and we found them to be quite valuable for getting people up to speed on frameworks, on languages, on sort of the technical skills, and just getting the familiarization and understanding that they can learn these things. Often it doesn't teach them everything, but it gets them the confidence that they need to move forward with it. I think bootcamps are definitely an option, and there's many good ones. We've worked with Epicodus here in Portland, and there's others as well. KEN: They're especially helpful I think for people who have some kind of technical or quantitative background but just need to learn to code. JAMON: Right. KEN: Per se. Yeah. JAMON: Yeah. It's a good way if you're switching to a second career, or something like that. Another one that I'm actually a really big fan of is Austen Allred's Lambda University. Now, this one's got a really unique model. It's a little more intense than a bootcamp I think. It's a fairly solid higher education option. They have a lot of success stories coming from it. But one of the really unique things that Austen's doing there is they do not charge tuition upfront. Essentially they will take a percentage of your income if you make above, I think it's $60,000 or something a year. Once you get a job that's above $60,000 a year, they'll take 17% of it for up to two years, and there's a cap. Like, $30,000 or something. TODD: That's amazing. I love that. JAMON: Yeah. And if you never get a job in that range, then you never pay it back. The debt is forgiven. TODD: That's a really cool idea. I love that. JAMON: Yeah. Yeah. It really is great. And apparently the financial model's been working for his university. It's an online one so it's very accessible and they're actually finding that they have a much more diverse student body because of the fact that someone who doesn't have a lot of means, doesn't have a lot of support, they can go to school online, they don't have to pay anything upfront. They're even good about trying to support them financially during the time that they're in the university. It's a really great model. I'm a big fan. Lambda School or Lambda University I think it's called. TODD: We'll put that in the show notes. JAMON: Yeah. And Austen's doing a good job with that. He also, if you follow him on Twitter, he's got some really great thoughts on education. I like what he tweets about. TODD: Yeah. I guess in summary there's many ways to get there. If you are a maker, like I always was ... even when I was a kid I constantly made things, I think my path might be an interesting idea. If you have the means to go to university, by all means do it for sure. If it's going to be a huge financial burden, I would definitely give it some serious thought before incurring that burden. CHRIS: I'm curious how you approach education "Once you make it." What does it look like on a daily basis to learn new things, be challenged by new things, or even challenge the people that you work with as well? JAMON: All you need to do is listen to this podcast religiously. TODD: It sounds ridiculous but it's absolutely true. Continuing education. That's a good one. Truthfully, for a software engineer, if you can't teach yourself every day, you're going to have trouble because whatever you knew last year ... I've been doing this for 22 years and I think that number changes every time I say it. I started in '96 so whatever that comes up to. JAMON: We're software engineers. We're not very good at math. TODD: Yes. That's a fact. But you have to learn new stuff. The stuff you worked on two years ago is not what you're working on today. It's constantly learning new stuff. Now, you learn certain patterns and certain ideas that you use over and over again, and you start as you get a lot of experience you start realizing how we're kind of just redoing the same thing over and over for the last 40 years. JAMON: Yeah. Ken, didn't you do an exercise where you learned a whole bunch of languages, and you wrote the same program several times? KEN: Yeah. It was fun. I had fun with it, and then it literally burnt me out of programming for a long time. JAMON: How many did you do? KEN: I got through ... I don't know. 20 or 30. JAMON: Wow. Yeah, so that's what Todd's talking about, is this sort of recurring theme that you see over and over. KEN: Yeah. And after a while it was just like, it was the same approach over, and over, and over, and over. JAMON: It became a lot easier to learn your 20th and 21st and 22nd. Yeah. KEN: Yeah. I always recommend people learn three or four languages, just for their own edification. A lisp, a low level of imperative language, C, C++, even Java, a dynamic language like Ruby or Python. JAMON: And then something like Haskell or Elm or something. KEN: Or actually something like Prolog or Erlang is actually probably more interesting than ... Haskell's great, but more interesting than that because it really makes you think about it in a different way. If you learn those, you can learn anything at that point. JAMON: I think one of the things that really helps me is I have this insatiable curiosity about concepts and computer science. I love reading about it, I'm on Twitter a lot and that's a good place to source new information. You can watch videos. Other people learn in different ways. I know one of our engineers will troll through GitHub. He'll actually jump into a package.json file which we- TODD: I don't know if, "Troll" is the right word, but yeah. JAMON: Well, trolling as in fishing. And he'll look at the dependencies of a particular well known thing, and look at what they use, and then go look at those and see how people code. It's a very cool way to learn. Other people, they'll learn by pairing with other programmers, they'll learn obviously by experience. Some people read books. We have one of our- TODD: Watch videos. JAMON: Yes, watching videos. One of our developers decided to learn ... this is Darin Wilson. He decided to learn Ecto, which is the database layer for Elixir. He decided to learn that by writing a book about it. And apparently that's been quite educational for him. He's learned a ton in teaching. TODD: Yeah. Don't do that, kids. It's a lot of work. That's kind of a lot about software engineering and that kind of stuff, but we're also, on the other side ... and we probably lost all the entrepreneurs by now, so I guess we should do this first. But on the other side is education when it comes to being an entrepreneur, running your own small business, running a larger business, that kind of stuff. JAMON: I learned first I would say by watching my dad. He was a small business owner, so I learned some basics there. I did know quite a few small business owners, and I did talk to them. I would go out to coffee with them or whatever, and just ask them questions. But it was very much a learn as I go type of a situation, learn as I had to. How do you do payroll? I had no idea. I hired a bookkeeper who taught me how to do payroll and did most of it, which was nice. How do you market? I had no idea. That was a whole thing that I had to learn. How do you do sales? I mean, I just plopped myself in front of people and tried to do the best I could, and tried to learn from it. That's probably not the way I would recommend going though. TODD: We did engineer our sales process by the way. JAMON: Once we merged companies, then Todd and I started doing sales together, and we had a much more engineery approach to it. It was good. Actually have a feedback loop, and we would try to build our experience over time. I have read some business books, I've watched some business videos, but for whatever reason software engineering, education has always been more ... I guess got more traction with education on that side. With business stuff that always seems so abstract and not directly applicable. KEN: I'm definitely at a point where I'm feeling like I could use some formal education honestly. The MBA is not what it used to be in terms of guaranteed high paying work. Even elite MBAs are not what they used to be in that regard. But I wouldn't downplay the value of the network building that they bring. But what they can't teach you, what no school could teach you, is what it's like to stare at your bank account and wonder if you're going to make payroll this month and how you handle that. I mean, it might mean that you know a good banker who can help you, but it doesn't teach you what that feels like. It can teach you about negotiation, but it doesn't teach you how to actually sit at a table with somebody who's got a lot more money and power than you. There's a reason that even regular business schools prefer that you go out and work some place for a little while before you go there. And I think that the EMBA route, if you're going for formal education, is probably a pretty good one, because then you have really embedded yourself. You have a very felt experience of what these things are like, so when you go to that negotiation class, or that finance class, or whatever, you get it. It's going to land someplace for you emotionally, that it wouldn't for a kid out of school. JAMON: What's an EMBA? KEN: Executive MBA, meaning a lot of the business schools will offer these programs frequently, nights or weekends, even at a high level, so it's right where you as a person who already runs a business can go and fill in your skillset. TODD: Interesting. KEN: And hobnob with other people like you. Yeah. And they're not cheap. TODD: Yeah, that makes sense especially if they're geared towards executives. My path was way too long. So, if you want to do it fast don't take my path, but this is my third company and I feel like I finally became a business person on my third company. That's a long time, and that wasn't three companies in three years. That was three companies in 15 years. I definitely wouldn't go my route. I think one of the things ... I mean, there's different aspects of business, right? Ken alluded to some of them. Financing, super important. If you're not making money, if you're not negotiating good deals with your vendors, or employees or whatever, if you're not keeping it cashflow where you can pay payroll, you're sunk, so that's very important. The other thing is, your management and leadership skills. As you grow, you're going to have a team, so that's very important. That's not something you super easily learned from a book. I think even things like accounting theory ... Ken, I don't know if you want me to share this story. Well, I'll just say it and we can cut it if you don't want it. This is kind of a funny story. When Ken and I first started this business, this was my third, but this was Ken's first business. And we were going over our accounting and he was telling me all about accounting theory, and he knew it very well, but I don't remember what it was, but it was something like I said, "We should get our P&L," and you had no idea what that was. It's a profit and loss report. KEN: I don't think that that was what it was. I don't think that's what it was. I don't remember what it was, because I knew what a P&L is. TODD: Maybe it was AR, account receivable? It was something very basic. KEN: Well, we had a long running argument about cash verus accrual accounting as I recall. TODD: Right. So regardless of what it was, and I don't mean to insult Ken whatsoever, but that's actually not uncommon. My wife's an accountant and she was trained at university for that and then she worked as a corporate accountant for a long time and worked her way up to a fairly high level. The day-to-day, just like in programming, you learn the concepts but once you hit the real world, the real world's so much different than anything. And I think that's true with a lot of ... KEN: I'll go into that. I was like, "I think we should do accrual accounting," and Todd's like, "I don't think so." I'm like, "Well, no. I really want to be able to ..." the benefit of accrual accounting is that you can see profit versus cashflow and it sort of gives you more information, but it's way more work, way more work. And if you haven't done it, you don't know that, so we are still a cash accounting. JAMON: Yes. TODD: Is it more work, Ken? KEN: What, accrual? TODD: Yeah. KEN: Much. TODD: Is it way more work? KEN: Much, much, much more work. Yeah. And that's something I don't really like very much. JAMON: One of the things I did well when I started my business was I forced myself to do a monthly budget. And I was doing this for my personal life too, so I just used the same skills I had there to do a budget for the business, which was much easier because I wasn't buying diapers there generally. There wasn't quite as many transactions- TODD: There's a joke in there somewhere. JAMON: Yes. There weren't as many transactions and stuff. But it was actually really great because I was able to keep a very close eye on where we were in a cash basis obviously, and then I did have accounts receivable system that I could look at to see what kind of money would be coming and do some forecasting and stuff. We've carried that forward to some extent here at Infinite Red doing the budgeting. We got away from it for a little while, but we're going to be going back and do it because it has been very helpful, even though you in some way feel like you're doing kind of double entry. TODD: Yeah. I think, gosh, business education and experience, you really have to have both. You have to study in some form, and you have to have experience. It's really challenging to be honest, compared to something more straightforward like becoming a designer or an engineer, just because it's very nebulous and very human oriented for sure. JAMON: And there's so many ways to do a business right, and there's many, many, many more ways to do it wrong. If you just follow a formula, that's not necessarily going to work. There's a lot of variables in business. TODD: And people tend to do things the way that they're comfortable with, or the way they're familiar with. It's kind of funny. My wife, she's actually a small business person now, but she's an accountant by trade as I mentioned. In accounting, they use spreadsheets to a ridiculous amount. And when I say ridiculous amount I mean they're super familiar with spreadsheets, very advanced spreadsheets, so if there is a task, they throw a spreadsheet at it. Now, as a programmer, my first thought was database. So, my first company, I did my accounting like a database, which probably wasn't great but it's what I understood. And that's what people do, they apply. So my wife Heather and I, sometimes I've went there and said, "That's cool, but you know, if we use a database this will be much easier." And I set her up with a great product called Airtable, and she switched from a spreadsheet for that particular thing to the database, and she loves it. And then looking at some of her spreadsheets, for example, as a programmer, if I needed a particular report for finances, I would assume I'd make a report and I would use a system to make a report and stuff. But for her it's super common to extract data from multiple sources, stick it into a pre-made spreadsheet and have the spreadsheet be the report. This is what accountants do all day. It seems more manual, but it's actually faster and more convenient. So as a person who's not educated, maybe not educated in starting a small business, or taking a long route like we do, you'll find that you're doing things that you know how to do. It may not be right, but you kind of get them done. And it's good to look, at some point, when you have time, to look how the professionals do it, so you can do it more efficiently. KEN: Well, and I want to piggyback on that, which is that one of the harder things that we've learned is to do some things manually, that there's real value in doing things manually and personally, and not trying to automate it. Like Todd says, when we think we need a report, the first we're going to go like, "Hm. We should write a report so we don't have to do it ourselves over and over again." Wrong. Wrong, unless you're- JAMON: We need the education- KEN: Unless you're Ford, unless you're a massive company that has already a very dialed in process, automating as a small company is sometimes counterproductive. Not only does it take a long time, a big time upfront, but then you are locked in and can't change it. You can, but now all changes are expensive. And two, there's real value to human eyes going and looking at the stuff and compiling it. And that was very hard for me to learn because, like a lot of people, I got into computers because I'm lazy, and I wanted the computer to do all the work for me. But there's no substitute for human eyes on the problem, in many cases. TODD: It's funny, because we're all engineers and designers, the way we do reports at work is we have an artificial intelligence chat bot in Slack that produces the reports for us. That's such an us way of doing things, it's hilarious. JAMON: If it's okay, before we wrap up here, I'm going to bring this back to universities for a second. I think this is actually a really important thing to get across to people who are considering that path. If your state offers ... here in Washington State it's called Running Start, but essentially the ability to go into a small community college that's nearby your high school, and get your first two years done for free. The K-12 system actually pays for your college, for the first two years. That's really helpful, and there's really no reason not to do that. That's a great way to get started. Secondly, if you are going to go to a university, unless it's something like Harvard, or maybe Stanford, you should really avoid private universities, especially for-profit universities. Those are really terrible. You really don't want to go that direction. KEN: Well, I want to draw a very clear distinction between private and for-profit. JAMON: Yes, of course. KEN: There's a lot of very good private schools. If you can afford them, go for it. A lot of them are really great, great education. for-profit schools completely different. JAMON: Todd and Ken, I'm not sure if you know this, but one of the things that ... well, you do know this. One of the things that for-profit universities do is they prey on disadvantaged students and stuff. They'll go and sign them up. And they actually did that at my school and I was actually signed up and accepted to one of these universities, which would have been an incredibly expensive education. I'm not sure what the quality would have been, but very, very expensive. And I backed out, but for a while I was thinking this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to go to this university for a computer science degree. And you just need to stay clear of them. It's not worth it. They're often predatory, they're just bad. TODD: Not to be confused. One thing I want to do mention is ... sorry to interject, Jamon. The Code Academies are for-profit also, but those- JAMON: Yeah. That's much different though. TODD: That's different. KEN: Yeah. We're not going to mention any of the names of the for-profit universities, because we don't want to get sued, but ... JAMON: They're bad, yes. KEN: They're bad. JAMON: But there're a lot of really great state universities they can go to. A really great way to go is to do ... your Running Start type program for two years and then go for the next two years at a state university and you can get a degree. And it's honestly relatively inexpensive. CHRIS: One of the things that I would love to add, regardless of what you do, whether you're an engineer, or a designer, or a founder of a company, one of the best ways to learn is actually to teach what you know to other people. TODD: Good point. CHRIS: So that when you don't understand something, you're going to dive in to learn it so that you can explain it to someone else, and that's where oftentimes I found that theory and practical knowledge combine and multiply. TODD: I think that's fantastic. I would totally agree. I've taught a handful of programmers throughout my career, from nothing into professionals, and nothing teaches you like teaching. It was a big boon. As for business education, we talked about that as a combination of education, however you get that, and experience. But if you want to be an entrepreneur, there is absolutely no excuse. Today is Tuesday when we're recording this. You can go down right no, go to Costco if you don't have a Costco card go to Walmart, buy bottled waters. They're really cheap. You're going to get 24 pack, whatever, for whatever it is. So basically you're paying pennies for each bottle. Go down to the beach, or wherever in your local town where people hang out, and sit there and sell bottled waters for about 30 minutes. KEN: Until someone calls the police on you for not doing it with a permit. TODD: Correct. That's why the time thing. But you can sell. When someone's out running, or they're with their kids at the park, you can sell one of those bottled waters for $2. You bought it for 15 cents, you sold it for $2. Congratulations. You are now a business person. And it just goes up for there, and the truth is, a lot of people who want to start a business, they really want to want to start a business, they don't actually want to start a business. So I always recommend to people, do the bottled water test. If that's very unpalatable to you, you're probably not ready. Doesn't mean you won't be ready, but you're probably not ready to start that small business yet. Little advice from your uncle Todd. JAMON: I don't think I would ever go to the beach and sell bottled water unless I had to. KEN: I don't think I would do that either. TODD: People like really successful in sales people and stuff like say Mark Cuban, he did this kind of stuff. But from a young age he was a business man and his job was to find things that he'd get for X and sell for a multiple of X. And he would do anything. He would go door to door. KEN: If you're already a programmer or designer, go get yourself an LLC and put your shingle out as a one person consulting firm. It's not the same quite as business, but it gives you a little bit of a flavor for it. It takes you down that road a little bit. That was certainly what did it for me. TODD: Don't work for free. KEN: Yeah. Don't work for free. TODD: Whatever you do, don't work for free. Everyone will try to get you to work for free. Don't do it. No free bottles of water. KEN: That's a whole another conversation. TODD: Except for the cop who's arresting you for permits. KEN: Yeah. TODD: Give him a few- KEN: What if I just slipped you one of these bad boys, officer? TODD: This fine, fine water could be yours. KEN: On that note, thanks for listening everybody. JAMON: See you next time. TODD: Yes, thank you. This was Todd, and this is Jamon. No, that's not Jamon. This is Jamon- JAMON: Thank you. This ... KEN: I had a great stopping point, and Todd just had to keep talking. You just had to keep talking. TODD: Ken, I'm not the kind of person who has to have the last word. KEN: Yes, you are. TODD: I'm really not. That's funny. I'm going to stop recording.

In this episode, Chris Martin of Type Classes and Joe LaSala of The Frontside talk about blockchain development. Do you have opinions on this show? Want to hear about a specific topic in the future? Reach out to us at contact@frontside.io or on Twitter at @thefrontside. This show was produced by Mandy Moore, aka @therubyrep of DevReps, LLC. TRANSCRIPT: JOE: Hey, everybody. Welcome to Episode 104 of The Frontside Podcast. I'm Joe LaSala. I'm a developer here at the Frontside and I'm going to be hosting today's episode. Today we're going to be associating blockchains and other cryptographically secure technologies and everything that has to do with the web and the future of the web. We have with us Chris Martin and he's currently with Type Classes. What do you do over there, Chris? CHRIS: Our goal is to teach functional programming with Types, specifically with Haskell and a little bit Nix. We do subscription video service. JOE: There seems to be, I guess a bit of an overlap between people who are into functional programming and people who are involved in this new space that has opened up, this new web, I guess and that's something that I want to talk about based on a tweet that I saw you made recently. You mentioned that there's a big section of the Haskell community that is being drawn into whatever the hot ICO is at that moment there, something along those lines. CHRIS: Some of it are bitcoin people or something else but there's definitely a weird overlap that I can't fully explain. JOE: It seems like strange bedfellows, right? CHRIS: Well, there's a couple of things that make sense, which I think the distributed systems in cryptography are kind of these notoriously hard problems. I think when somebody wants to convince their boss that they really need to use Haskell for this problem, I think they can make a persuasive argument in this case. JOE: That's interesting. There's actually, a lot of technology around blockchains around bitcoins, specifically being written in Haskell. I didn't know they were technologically overlapped like that. I guess I just thought they were two very kind of passionate communities but you're saying that a lot of the bitcoin startups that you might see coming out in any given week are actually being written with an eye towards functional programming. Is that accurate? CHRIS: I don't know about bitcoin along this bit but I think some of the people who are working for banks and trying to develop their own sort of novel internal blockchains and stuff, I think those are the people who see this. Although in the case of banks, we don't necessarily see what's coming out of them, so we can't verify whether they're actually shipping things or not. JOE: Yeah. That means there's a lot to touch on there. I would agree with you on your initial sentiment, also just to extend to say that I think personally that both communities are really evangelical. Functional programmers, people who are into functional programming, for me it hasn't clicked yet and I know that it will come into my heart. I've asked functional programming to kind of where things are starting to fall into line where I'm certain to see the world in that way but for people who have seen the light fully, I'm sure believers once monads and functors kind of enter the conversation. They don't leave. It's similar like when bitcoin first started and everybody's running about the gold standard. Really, it's just nothing. It was hard to find resources on it that did the most of the amount of screaming. CHRIS: Yeah, you're absolutely right, that culturally, they're going to attract the same group of people or the people who are willing to adopt something that's not fully fleshed out yet, people who want to take what they believe and sit in this community and try and spread it to the rest of the world. I think it's the same kind of people. JOE: The early adoption, I think is something I can consider too. I guess it's a very risk-oriented group. CHRIS: Yeah, kind of. I mean, Haskell is pretty old, I guess but -- JOE: That's fair, yeah. CHRIS: -- Some of the changes that really make it, it great and usable lately are pretty [inaudible]. JOE: That's interesting. You mentioned this idea -- we kind of skipped over a little bit but thanks, having their own blockchains and that's something that I think that maybe people not actively following this space, which is I will say, a very hard space to keep up for those of us who are actively following it. But those who may just know blockchain through the name of an iced tea company changing or some sensational news article or what have you or just through bitcoin even, but I know that it's not the blockchain. It's not a singular blockchain. It's very easy to implement the fundamental structure. It's a linked list, essentially, with the kind of a cryptographic thing that keeps from breaking that link. Those links are inserting new history, I guess the further you go back. I guess people are even exploring different data structures like directed acyclic graphs and stuff and how that could be used to map other domains but the reality is it's a linked list and you can spend up as many of them as you want and you can mine blocks based on all this different criteria. Bitcoin is a proof of work associated with the minting of a new block and that's been a problem for them as they scale as a currency but it could be a history of anything and the minting of those blocks can be based on anything. You mentioned banks, the financial kind of sector is certainly interested in these smaller private chains but do you think there's a use for that consumer market as well? How do you think that your personal blockchain or set of blockchains might be a factor in the hobbyist of the futurist life? CHRIS: Oh, wow. That's a different question than I thought. [inaudible] where you're going with that -- JOE: Where do you think I was going? CHRIS: Well, we're talking about banks and so, the question is now everybody other than banks -- JOE: Well, it could be everybody, including banks too, however you want to take it. CHRIS: Yeah. There's a much harder question, I think of what in the world we're actually saying when we are talking about blockchain, right? The notion obviously has started with bitcoin but if what you want to do is bitcoin, then you should just be as in bitcoin, so what are we talking about similar bitcoin and the general phrase people have they like to throw in here is Byzantine fault tolerance. I'm talking about any kind of system that can have multiple participants. We're used to talking about clusters of computers and making systems that can work if one of them fails, if one of them just stops working but now, we're starting to talk about how do we make systems work if one of them gets hacked, then we still have some assurances that the whole system works together as a whole. JOE: Would you consider Byzantine fault tolerance to be the defining factor of a blockchain because I feel like there's the timestamping element that goes along with it. I feel like they're kind of part and parcel, right? CHRIS: Kind of but if you're not considering Byzantine faults, if you're only talking about systems where you have benign faults, which is a machine goes down sometimes, then timestamping isn't really a problem because we can just use NTP and we all have a pretty sensible idea of what time it is. JOE: Time specifically, even just like, I guess order. I always considered sequence to be a massive part of what a blockchain fundamentally was. You have the distributed aspect of the network that gives this sort of resilience to malicious intent but not only is it protected, I guess against demolition and malicious intent by this crowd strength but also just fundamentally through the cryptographic side of it, you can't go in and insert things that didn't happen. Once that order has been said, it's been written in stone, basically, right? Because the way I understood is there were papers coming out of Bell Labs in the early 90s and those two things set as approaches to this independently and it wasn't until the internet advance so we put them together and we're able to achieve Byzantine fault tolerance through that. Is that, I mean...? CHRIS: It does help a lot, I think to buck up and think about what the state of research was in the 90s because I think that's something that a lot of people in blockchain space kind of lose sight of. You have a whole lot of people writing papers now who didn't used to be academics until a couple of years ago. It was the early 90s where we started having faxes and we started having what later turned into what's kind of known as raft. Like you said, they solved the ordering problem. Even something as simple as what we call Lamport clocks which is you have sort of a virtual timestamps and as long as nobody's malicious, if you remove the timestamp forward, then we can all have something that resembles the deterministic forward flow of time. Then, that milestone that I was like to remind people of this in 1999 is when we had the paper practical Byzantine fault tolerance. JOE: That was '99. You're talking about the... was it Castro and --? CHRIS: Liskov, yeah. JOE: Okay. I didn't know it was '99. CHRIS: Interestingly, the same Liskov that the Liskov substitution principles named for, Barbara Liskov. It's also a distributed systems research. JOE: That's swell as well. I kind of heard the concept of Byzantine fault tolerance but I never read this paper. I'm also surprised to find that it didn't come out of that same period of the early 90s and it was as far as '99. I haven't read its entirety but I did fall asleep reading it last night. You mentioned this specifically, I guess, when we're talking today, as a paper that is important. It's the work that we're trying to do at... was it Hijro, I think? CHRIS: Yeah. JOE: Yeah, so what kind of work were you doing there and what is important to you, I guess about this paper specifically, when you look at all the research that went into priming the community for the space that we are now in? CHRIS: When I joined Hijro, I got kind of a difficult and nebulous mission, which was that everyone in and around that space that was trying to sell to banks was if you said the word blockchain, you could get your foot in the door because all the banks were looking at bitcoin and saying, "Well, look, this is clearly something that's going to be big and we don't want to be missing out, so we have to figure out how this applies to us." JOE: What year is this? They were working this in 2014-ish, is that right? CHRIS: '15 or '16, I think. The question was trying to figure out what aspect of it was actually what they wanted here. What Hijro is trying to sell them, the details aren't even important for this conversation but we need an interbank solution. We needed a ledger of accounts that 'we weren't a bank so we couldn't be the one holding everyone's money and keeping track of the flow of money in our network.' We were on something that the banks were truly in charge of but we didn't want to necessarily have our platform be owned by a particular bank. We wanted to be the sort of consortium of all of our partners. JOE: Consortium is a keystone word I think here, that we should definitely come back to that. CHRIS: Yeah and people talk about, if I use the word consortium blockchain, I think sometimes in contrast with the public blockchain, with the 'free anyone can join' blockchain. JOE: Yeah. I'm particularly fascinated by this concept. That is a term that is used. I can confirm this. But you're doing that pretty early then because I feel like that concept didn't make it out into, I guess the public understanding, until recently or maybe I'm just behind at times. CHRIS: Yeah, I guess so. I don't know. When I start working on this, I just spent a couple of months trying to read papers about what was in space and I guess, the only big name that was trying to do something like this was Tendermint. JOE: Tendermint? Interesting. CHRIS: You can pick out technologies like this because the magic number is always one-third. They can tolerate Byzantine failure up to one-third of the nodes. That was a theoretical result that was reached, just sort of the best you can do. Before BFT and then BFT is one of those solutions in that category and Tendermint does something similar. JOE: That, I guess is sort of the background to this paper and it's impacting your life. I guess, what is put forth in this paper is to solve for higher tolerance. Would that be the right way to put it? CHRIS: Did you say higher tolerance? JOE: Yes. You're talking about the Byzantine tolerance is 30%, right? With Tendermint? But you're saying that they're doing something similar to that's before in the paper? CHRIS: The most interesting thing to me, I think is probably, hopefully possible to convey concisely is the rationale behind the one-third number because that took a while for me to really appreciate but I think it really clicked when it did. One of the hardest intuitions to get people to break, I don't know, way of thinking to shift, I guess is convincing people that consensus is even a hard problem because I had this conversation a lot with people that'd say, "I've got this JavaScript library here, for instance that just lets me broadcast a message to all the nodes in a cluster, so why can I just do that?" Why can't we just use one at a time to do it and if I detected someone's trying to cheat, if I get two different messages from someone that are conflicting, maybe I can just ignore them. JOE: Not in finance. That's kind of ironic, I guess that you found it difficult to get people to come to a consensus about the importance of consensus. CHRIS: Right. The basic flow of all these things is we describe them as voting systems. We have voting rounds where each time, like you said the blockchain of the ledger or whatever it is, just a linked list, so the problem of using consensus build database is we're just going to iteratively try to vote or come to consensus on what the next block is. What the next ledger entry should be? Obviously, since we don't have a synchronized wall clock to go by, we have to assume messages can come in any order. We might all sort of speak up simultaneously and propose different blocks as the next one, at which point we have to start over and retry that. But furthermore, I can send different votes to different people if I'm trying to be malicious and that's where the tricky part comes on. The rationale for the one-third number, maybe I can just try to come around to that and say it directly then, is that when we take a vote for what the next block is going to be, we need the supermajority. We need two-thirds of the participants to have all said the same thing and the rationale for that is it's actually easier to think of it backwards. Rather than saying, two thirds of the total, what we say is, "If we're going to allow some fixed number of nodes to fail, to behave maliciously --" you know, we traditionally call that number 'F' in the paper, then what we say is we need 3F+1 total nodes to be participating. JOE: I didn't know that was sort of codified into how conflict is resolved on things like bitcoin during blockchain. It's inherent, I guess. CHRIS: No. This is the total opposite of what bitcoin and Ethereum are going to do. JOE: Because I always thought it was just going to be like a majority, I guess but what you are talking about is more like how the Senate would were to pass a resolution to the constitution, like it has to be an exceptional majority. I'm starting to understand why one-third, specifically. It's 3F+1, I guess. CHRIS: The reason is because for each vote, every time I look at the results of a vote, I have to be able to assume that some number that we called F, of the people that I've heard back from are trying to cheat me. It turns out I need to be sure that the majority of the votes that I've heard back are from people who are actually following the protocol correctly and not lying. We need to be tolerant to two kinds of failure. One is that a node simply goes down and we don't hear from them and we don't receive a vote from them and then the other kind of failure is the Byzantine failure, that they're not following protocol in some way. The reason I need 3F+1 nodes is because we need to be able to make progress, even if F of these number is we didn't hear from at all because they're down and then, I need 2F+1 votes because I need to take into account the possibility that some F of these votes were from cheaters and then we need to have more honest votes than lying votes. JOE: That's pretty profound. I definitely going to finish the rest of this paper while conscious later today. I guess we're a little off with regard to math at this point and it's when you said, you spent I guess a month or so just reading papers around the time you started with Hijro and I guess did you stop because I feel like I've read just more white papers than ever thought I would outside of the academic setting, just trying to keep pace with what's been going on, particularly with regard to the web. I don't if you're familiar with like IPFS but these sort of directed acyclic graph things are popping up all over the place and platforms are even now being built on this concept. I guess, Ethereum feels impractical in a lot of ways. These dime-a-dozen tutorials, when you started talking about the global computer that is Ethereum and the blockchain and it's going to change everything in the internet and you won't have to pay Comcast like some central authority or you just pay for each transactions. The reality of it is every time you do a write against a data store have, first of all, thousands of computers go and verify that and also, you don't want to store your information on a linked list. It's not feasible for storing large data structures and it becomes very expensive for the user and for the person, if you're maintaining a smart contract for the contract itself. These are volatile, all little points of value. It's impractical. CHRIS: It's definitely a cost that you don't want to incur. In all cases, just a confirmation time is a cost you don't want to incur. JOE: Absolutely. CHRIS: There is one nice thing that that you can do in some cases, which is that people is talking about the piggybacking on these blockchains like if I have a system and I just want some extra assurance to keep it honest, then I can do things like periodically publish a hash of my database onto something like bitcoin or Ethereum. JOE: Yeah. That actually happen with anyone in financial... They do publish stuff in the paper and this was before cryptographic ledgers but to basically prove that this was the state of something, I remembered seeing this somewhere, like there would be in financial news, like there'd be some crazy number or string at the top to verify what was on the string. CHRIS: Yes. Of course, the irony there is that you really don't need some kind of blockchain if you want to do that because the fact that we're doing that before the blockchain has existed and doubly, it's funny because the first block of the bitcoin blockchain, the genesis block includes in it, I think a New York Times headline, which was intended as proof that Satoshi or whoever didn't spend years mining bitcoin prior to releasing it. It's supposed to be a proof of the time of the first genesis actually was. It's funny that we are actually already had this verification system and what that demonstrates is sort of a principle of consensus that I like to talk about which is that as you increase the time scale, consensus becomes an easier and easier problem. I think the reason why something like newspaper headlines are reliable means of a timestamp is just mostly because they're big and slow, because there's only one every day. I think the whole challenge like you said of, how a lot of systems kind of boiled down to having the white paper for bitcoin refers it describes bitcoin as a distributed timestamp server, something along those lines. The reason why you need a new technology to do that, I think so that you could have timestamps that are every of couple minutes, rather than every 24 hours. JOE: That's a very interesting take on it. I guess, the more time there is, it is easier to reach a consensus. It's just interesting to think about. It's funny as humans like the longer time passes, the less reliable memory is, I guess, less reliable history as we conceive of it, I guess. It's different when you record something than the way that you hold in the brain that sometimes I wonder how much impact that's had on. It's a little ephemeral, I guess but it's interesting. CHRIS: Yeah. I guess my statement is limited to the on-scale where we can actually fit into memory. JOE: Right, that most of the times, it's the only relevant scale, I guess, like a blockchain doesn't have use outside of our use of it, inherent to it, so it's going to be seen through that lens, I guess of our use of it. I think it is kind of profound, a thing to think about that I definitely considered. You mentioned using blockchains as adding a little bit of... how do you put it? Like truthiness, I guess, we'll say. I know that's not how you put it but adding a little bit of security, maybe around something else but the reality is you can get away with that on a number of other levels. I think that's important and interesting to think about. There seems to be this trend now talking about a blockchain as part of a bigger picture or consortium blockchain or a consortia of blockchains, right? Because a consortia would be multiple and then a consortium would be... No, a consortium would be a single grouping, consortia would be multiple groups. Basically, going back to the problem you're trying to solve with Hijro, you have multiple banks and I believe eventually, I don't know if you work on it, there was a protocol that came out of that company to unify these blockchains, like a few of them. They demoed and everything. That, I think gives you some power with regard to access control but again, I guess, that's not a thing that you really need consensus for. So, where does it fit in? Aside from things like voting and transparent finance for maybe a political cause or in the case of bitcoin, just finance in general. In bitcoin, I feel like we got Mongo DB super hard in the sense that it just got applied to every domain and it applies to very, very few. CHRIS: My boss at Hijro, Lamar Wilson really like to say that people talked about blockchain like it was hot sauce and they sort of sprinkle it on everything to make it better. JOE: That's sad. CHRIS: I guess, two answer to that one. One of the places where it absolutely captivates people's imaginations too far and doesn't work and then places where it doesn't work, so I want to start with the first here because the biggest mistake that people make is that there was this notion of tokenization that came out of Ethereum, where anyone could make a smart contract that represented something and now, also that I can trade digitally. Just like it's money or some kind of digital asset, so people want to talk about putting your car, putting your house on the blockchain or selling it there. But it's just shocking how many times I had to remind people that if I make a smart contract that represents cars and I put my VIN number on it and I transfer you my car, at Ethereum contract in an exchange for a bitcoin, if I call the police and report my car stolen, they're not going to look at the Ethereum contract, right? JOE: Yeah. Man, you're really right. People don't think about that enough. If your car is in the blockchain, your car still on the block. CHRIS: What we had realize when we're selling solutions like this is that they're great for some reasons but you need actual legal agreements to underpin things when you actually make connection to the real world. The magic of bitcoin that can't really be replicated is that the coin actually didn't need a pinning to the real world because the thing bitcoin was running was itself. It just depended on hoping that people were going to find the coin and ledger valuable intrinsically and bitcoin never really purported to control things in the real world. JOE: I guess, definitely not in the paper. There are some place that can buy in from some very specific elements of society that sort of cemented its place as useful but we don't really need to go to that road, I guess. I don't know. You know, my roommate is a lawyer and we have this conversation often and I feel like if we go down law and cryptography, we're going to be talking for too long, where we are at currently. CHRIS: Right and that wasn't your question anyway. It was just what I respond to easiest because being a critic is always the easier thing to do. JOE: I can feel you there. CHRIS: One of the interesting things that I never even found too much about but I noticed this in a couple of passing references as I was reading stuff about Byzantine fault tolerance in general is that it seems to have some application in things like flight control systems and space ships because when you think about a computer that you're going to send into space, you have two things that Byzantine fault tolerance applies to directly. One is you need a lot of redundancy. You need these control systems, maybe you have a dozen things computing the same result because you can't replace the hardware when once you shot something to space. The second thing is once you've sent something outside the atmosphere, all of the sudden, you're being bombarded with a lot more cosmic rays than you were before. Now, you actually really do this idea that computers can fail, not just by stopping but by producing wrong results. All of a sudden, it becomes a lot more real because you actually have physics slipping a bit at your computers. JOE: I don't even think you have to go as far as space if you talk about just like a fleet of something, like self-trading cards. I suppose, in domain where there is an interplanetary file system, it's good to specify the planet we're talking about. Just having worked a little bit with robots in college, they lie all the time and they produce bad data constantly, so not even bad actors just incompetent actors, I guess could definitely... This is something that has to be, I guess on our minds as we move forward as the society that has more connected devices, which I think as much as I would love to have left this conversation off in outer space, I think bringing it around to the internet of things, which is sort of where this all began months and months ago is probably a good place to stop meandering through these cryptographic weeds. You can probably put a pin in this. I think we've been talking about for a while now, I guess and just kind of trying to see what it is and where the applications are. It's constantly changing and never clear, I think is the conclusion that I've come to. I don't know. I think, just kind of shooting the breeze about it is a fitting end to a series of Frontside engagements in this space, for the time being. CHRIS: I've seen several people try to tackle the space of how to stop relying on things like Google Drive to store our data because I think a lot of us have realized that we're tired of losing all of our family photos every time a hard drive dies but a lot of people are uncomfortable with trusting Google with everything. This to me seems like a perfect opportunity for people to start building redundant systems among their home and friends. JOE: Yeah, I completely agree. I'm actively trying to do exactly that right now. CHRIS: Oh, cool. And you don't necessarily want your cluster of machines that's running on all of your family's computers to be able to go down if your 10-year old get some virus, right? JOE: Right and also, there's definitely things that you want just within your home or even just within your section of the home. I guess you could layer chains, to kind of manage those interactions? CHRIS: Sure. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by layering chains. JOE: You could have consortia in this case. If you had like a hypervisor, almost like a control notice, essentially or some type of view from above of this situation, you could say, think of it as a family scenario. We have three different houses on this call that all belong to our immediate family and cousins and whatever and it's like, me and my siblings, we have information that we all want just within the siblings. We don't want Mom and Dad to know. We don't want the cousins to know, so you could basically use like a blockchain to kind of date access to data that is held within that consortium and then the consortia could communicate amongst each other. Only the pertinent information that they wanted to allow access to at that time and then, internally of course, you could have all these different mechanisms for how you actually store that data or how you actually serve it up. It's pretty complicated. CHRIS: Yeah, I think you made a lot of sense, though. JOE: Yeah, cool. I'm hoping so. There's been some work on it out of Microsoft, actually. CHRIS: On the files storage problem, specifically? JOE: I guess this is like with a smart home and kind of just teaching devices to cooperate and ask each other. If you had a section of connected devices that maybe were related to the workflow that a human being might go through to get groceries or something and then a section that's related to doing laundry or whatever, eventually, they would learn to communicate in the laundry grouping and could say, "Hey, grocery people. We're out of soup," or something like that. It's sort of almost happened organically, I guess. I had not actually felt like I found that paper. I've only found references to it. This is where I need to get something like academic access but that was interesting stuff. I don't know how I end up here, either. This has always happening when you're talking about this domain. Anyway -- CHRIS: People's ideas, it's just sort of generally inspiring concept so people is following you everywhere. JOE: Yeah, it's heartwarming. You know, with my ICT, I could look back and see exactly where I usually came from than [inaudible], the name of the farmer who grew with. I don't know. It'd be so much easier to fake most things, really when you think about it. On that note, I hope that this conversation was... I know that there was no JavaScript and I apologize for that but I hope that our audience finds it interesting on some level and I want to thank you for your time. Chris, it was really great talking to you and getting your take on these things as somebody who's been in the industry for a while. Definitely, some fascinating points to consider and definitely, I will finish that white paper, probably this evening because it's pretty cool. If anybody in the audience has anything they'd like to ask you about pertinent to this conversation or anything else, where is a good place to get a hold of you? CHRIS: For me, it's mostly Twitter. I'm @chris__martin. I'm also at Type Classes, if you want to talk to me about our new business. JOE: Cool. This has been Episode 104, I believe of The Frontside Podcast. Frontside, we're a consultancy based in Austin, Texas and we love writing elegant, sustainable code and just producing good stuff, really. I think that's what we're all about. I think, we can agree at least, that's a core tenet of what we do and if you would like us to produce some good stuff for you, feel free to get in touch with us. Also, feel free to reach out via email if you have any ideas for future topics or any feedback about this episode. I also want to thank Mandy for producing this episode. You can catch us next week, I believe for our talk with Brian Douglas on Probot and Robert will be hosting that one, as far as I know. Thank you all for your time and feel free to reach out. This has been The Frontside Podcast. I'm Joe LaSala. Chris Martin, thank you for joining us and have a good day, everybody.

In this episode of Building Infinite Red, we are talking about clients and some of the assumptions that often need to be challenged when creating software. Throughout the episode, Todd, Ken, and Jamon touch on the importance of knowing who your audience is, what they value, and how your ideas will meet their needs. Show Links Dropzones App Release by Mark Rickert A Dark Room by Amir Rajan Uncommon Sense by Derek Sivers Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: Today we are talking about clients. It's an important topic and one that pretty much every business owner inevitably gets asked a variety of questions. The question that we could start with is: what's your favorite moment in working with clients? JAMON HOLMGREN: You would think it would be when you launch their app or their site, or something like that, but I often find that actually to be a little bit anti-climactic 'cause there's so much going on. There's usually already plans in place for a version 1.1. It's not usually like everybody gather around the big green button and then the founder pushes the button, and it goes live. Although a little side note, Mark Rickert, who is one of our developers has released an app to the app store while in free fall during a skydive. That is true. We can link to it and there's a YouTube video of it. But that's not usually how it works. KEN MILLER: It wasn't a client app I don't think. I think it was one of his apps, but still. JAMON: That was a pretty cool way to do it. But no, you would think that would be the most exciting time. The exciting time is usually during design, for me, because I feel like you start getting a lot of enthusiasm, the energy. A lot of those things start coming out during the design process. And when we get a chance to use our design process—some clients will come to us with something already designed, others will come to us who need design. When they're going through the design process, it's really exciting, you can see a lot of the possibilities. The development side of things is also fun, but a little slower moving. TODD: I agree with Jamon on the design side. Once we get through the product development and start getting into design, probably past the wireframing and into some more concrete examples, it's pretty fun to see the client get really excited. Especially if it's a situation where they show people who are interested in their product, or their stakeholders and investors, or whomever, and they had a good reaction to it. I would add the second most fun time with clients is once there is a beta or an alpha available for their beta testers. And again, they send it to them and they use words like "blown away," or something like, that's awesome. I'm not gonna lie and say, that's always what happens, but those two times I think are the most fun to me. CHRIS: One of the things that Jamon wrote in Slack that was interesting is: what are some common assumptions that clients bring to the process that have to be corrected? TODD: I don't know if there's anything that's common or consistent across clients. There are some things that come up. I would say, depending on the experience level of the client with software product development, we may have a little to a lot of teaching to do. And that's one of the things we like to do is teach. I find it particularly fun when our start-up clients are newer, they're not on their series B or something. Because there is a lot of moments that you can help them and give them kind of golden information. Both from our personal experience running start-ups, but also we work with a lot of start-ups. So we've been through this before. There are some misconceptions about software. Not necessarily from our clients, but from people who weren't a good fit for us. For example, it's very common in the world at large, to believe software is orders of magnitude cheaper than it really is. People also get very used to the quality that they see in apps like Facebook or Gmail, or these kind of things. And they think they can spend less than a car to get those things. When you're in our industry of course, that doesn't seem super logical, but from their perspective it makes sense. An app costs nothing, or $1.99. JAMON: Right. TODD: Or $4.99, so of course something like that seems cheap. What they don't know, of course, is Facebook has tens of thousands of employees. JAMON: Yeah. TODD: And even a smaller app, let's not chose Facebook, which is huge. But like Instagram, for example. And not what it is now, but what it originally was, probably cost half a million to make. JAMON: Yeah, I think I saw that they put $250,000 into their MVP originally. And it's a very simple app when you look at it, compared to a lot of apps out there. I think that's definitely something that, as Todd said, it's not necessarily the clients who end up being good fits for us. But usually we get calls from everybody, all kinds of people. KEN: Well, even those prices are reflective of just how far software has come in terms of developer productivity. JAMON: Right. KEN: Because half a million dollars doesn't even get you a house in the Bay area. And the people building your house, most of them are being paid 20, 30, 40 dollars an hour and not $200 an hour, or $100 an hour. The Bay area is full of software engineers being paid $150,000 a year and up, many that are way higher than that. And you can still build software for half a million dollars, which is actually is pretty impressive when you think about that in terms of it's inputs. JAMON: Another interesting thing that the clients don't necessarily realize when they come to us is the impact that the design process can have on their product. Usually you're thinking of design as making it look pretty, making it look nice. But there's a whole lot more that goes into that. The visual design aspect of design is usually, maybe, the last 30%, something like that. It's not the bulk of the design work. But there's a lot of value that can be added there. You can avoid expensive mistakes during design by spending the time upfront to really learn as much as you can about your core customers and the features that are necessary. Because software is expensive, so you wanna build as little of it as possible until you really know the direction that you need to go. TODD: Yeah, and I wanna be clear. You can make, for instance, a mobile app for $100,000 to $200,000. It's not a half a million. But something that's larger could be millions as well. Just wanna make that note on that price there. JAMON: I think another misconception that some clients might have when they come into it, is they don't understand necessarily all of the breadth of things that need to happen to make an app. We've had people come to us and want to build an app, but they don't necessarily realize that they also need a server and they need some sort of cloud connectivity. They might need offline support. They might need access to certain APIs for GPS or whatever. And beyond that, how to get through the app store. And how to get through Google Play. What is a compelling app store listing? What does that look like? You know, what screenshots are important? And one of the most successful apps that I've ever been involved with, which is called A Dark Room by my friend Amir Rajan, he actually only has one screenshot on the app store, and it's a very uninspiring one. But he has millions of downloads. It's just, he hit it right on the head. TODD: You know which store is incredibly hard to get through? IKEA. (laughter) Just saying. KEN: It's true. TODD: We've mentioned before in this podcast, but it's worth repeating, design is not how things look. Design is how things work. And through the very first part of our design process is product discovery. And that's even before how things work. That's what product is you want to make at all. Since we work with a lot of start-ups, we also sometimes coach them, if they need it on coming up with a customer acquisition plan and a revenue plan, which their investors, prospective investors that they pitch to, will definitely ask them about, having pitched to them myself. So design is very important and it's also one of the most difficult things that we mentioned in a previous podcast was getting from zero to one. Product discovery and design really help our clients get from zero to one. JAMON: And they're starting a business, you know, it's not just building an app. They're starting a business, or they're continuing a business that they already have. And there's a lot that goes into building a business for sure. I think that's one of the things that, maybe some friends of mine who might message me and say, "hey Jamon, I've got this app idea, it's a billion dollar idea." (laughter) "Promise not to go off and rip me off. I wanna tell you it." And it's fine, you know, the ideas are a very necessary part of this, they're a spark. They're really important. But the execution side of things involves designing and building the app, which we can do. We're really great at it, we've done it a lot of times. But also, the business side of things. There's no one right answer to how to build a business. You can see that with many different business models. And that's the tough part. Now, it can be very rewarding though, the whole journey and it's been really fun to watch our clients build business models that are sustainable and come back as they grow, as they succeed, they find new opportunities and they come back to us and say, "hey Infinite Red, we need some new features. We need a new app. We need to rebuild the app for maybe a different purpose." Those things are very fun to see. TODD: Ken, you had a great thing about ideas, when people have an idea for a business. You've talked about a lot and I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. KEN: Oh, and how they're not usually worth the paper that they're written on. (laughter) TODD: Yes. KEN: Where this came from was that, like back in the days of the dotcom boom, when everybody and their brother had some amazing idea. I would be at a social dinner with somebody and they would be like, they'd whip out an NDA and be like, I wanna talk to you about this idea I have and I need you to sign this NDA. And I'm like, "No. I'm not gonna sign your NDA." Ideas, per se, are not worth very much. Right? A high level idea, per se, is not worth very much. Like my idea's like, "hey, I have an amazing idea. What if you took a car, then you made it fly?" Right? And people will be like, "that's an amazing idea." Now, how are you actually gonna do that? And so it's kinda like, just because I have this amazing idea, "oh what if you made cars fly," doesn't mean that when somebody goes and actually makes cars fly that I have any right to that idea. JAMON: Mm-hmm (affirmative). KEN: Right? Because the high level idea by itself, although cool, doesn't actually get you there. It's the millions and millions of other good ideas that follow that, that really make something work. Jamon, do you wanna tell the dating with music, I could tell you wanna tell the dating with music story. JAMON: That's exactly what I was gonna interject. So Derek Sivers, who founded CD Baby, he has a YouTube video, it's very short. We can link to it in the show notes. Essentially it's talking about ideas versus execution. And the general premise is sort of this, that he met with a friend of a friend, and they were having lunch. And this guy had this billion dollar idea. And he says, okay, what's this great idea that you have? And the guy kind of leans over, very intense, and says, dating with music. (laughter) And Derek's like, is there anything else? (laughter) Is this ... He's like, no, dating with music dude. And it was ... he's like, okay, this idea is worth maybe the price of a lunch. Right? Like, the execution of it is the multiplier, you know, you can have a multiplier ... a great idea, not execute it at all, is really not worth much. A bad idea, executed really well is also not worth all that much. But a really good idea executed really well, is a multiplier that becomes your billion dollar idea. I don't think it necessarily tells the whole story, you know, that particular anecdote because there's also timing and other things like that. KEN: Well and that idea isn't even a multiplier idea. That's like a hint at a maybe multiplier idea. Right? JAMON: Yes. TODD: He was just being nice to the guy. KEN: He was being nice, right. So it's kind of like, when I say there's a chain of ideas, the first germ of the idea is the kind of idea that someone might get when high. Kind of like, "hey man, what if it was like dating, but with music. Yeah." (laughter) Right? That's exactly a high person's idea. I would almost bet money that that was a high idea. But anyway. The next thing is like, oh well you get people to put in their music that they like and we match people up. That's starting to be an actual idea. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Right? That's starting to be like, what's the actual hook. And even that, there's still, like well how does it work? What's the UX? What's the viral engine around that? JAMON: Yeah. KEN: It's not just programming. Like, we're all programmers historically, so we're gonna tend to see all of the stuff that's gonna go behind that. JAMON: Mm-hmm (affirmative). KEN: Really, it's the product development of design that, or really, what's important. And a lot of the details that matter, are sometimes the ones that are not obviously to your competitors. TODD: Almost always. KEN: Almost always. So this idea that your super secret idea is gonna make everything work is, frankly, BS. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: You have to keep having those good ideas over and over and over again. Every techy who's been in Silicon Valley, or a similar environment, and around the sorts of people who have these sorts of ideas, every single one has a story of being approached by somebody who's saying, "hey I've got this great idea. I'm gonna get you in on the ground floor with it. But I just need somebody to make it." JAMON: Mm-hmm (affirmative). KEN: And we'll split it 50/50. Young techies fall for this. Very quickly you learn, uh, no. You'd better have a lot more than that for that to be a 50/50 bargain. TODD: I'm not even joking when I say that in San Francisco at least 50% of your Uber drivers will pitch an idea to you on your ride. JAMON: We got pitched in an Uber, us three. We were in an Uber not that long ago and we got pitched on an idea. And I think that it's kind of interesting because the apps that do tend to be more successful that we're involved with, they're often not big ideas. They're good ideas, they're not like huge ideas. They're existing companies that have a need that their customer base has kind of expressed, they can see it's fairly obvious. And they come to us and they say, hey we need really good execution. And that's what we're good at. They've identified the need. Have a lot of the infrastructure already in place. They already know how they're gonna monetize it. They already know how it's gonna impact their business. They just need a really great app. And that's where we really plug in. Now it has been kind of interesting to watch start-ups where they don't have that in place and how they develop that. And where they go with that. It's much more risky. A lot of them do fail. And one of the things that I've heard from some of those clients sometimes is, "Jamon, why aren't you so excited about my idea?" Now I'm not trying not to come across excited, I am excited about their idea. It's just that I've seen so many of these where there's certain other parts of the business that they lack. From my standpoint, if I was in the business of picking winners and losers, I'd probably be doing my own start-up, right? But, honestly, there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of variables. And not all of them are in your control. So I think it's been really cool to see the ones that do succeed. See how they piece it all together. I have a lot of respect for them, it's a difficult thing, but it's very rewarding. And then, of course, the companies that come in, like, we just started a project recently, this week actually I think. And they are an established company, they have a very big user base. A lot of people have heard of them, but they need a much better app. And they need a better app experience. And that's really where you see the clients that really shine. KEN: There may be a few people listening who are kind of mentally going like, "hmm, is that me?" What I would say is, if you think it's you, it might be. (laughter) If you wanna know, like I wanna do this thing. And I don't program and I'm not a designer, like, I don't know how to make these things and I don't really wanna be that person. If the idea isn't what's important, then what is important? What do I bring to the table that is gonna help me succeed and help a company like Infinite Red, or even just an individual programmer who I happen to find? What am I bringing to the table that will help beyond the big idea? And there's really two things. And they're big ones. And you need at least one. And preferably two. And one is, access to capital. Not just building this, not just paying us to build this. But all the marketing and everything else. Right? You're gonna need money. And you're not gonna want to be in a position where when you run out, it just dies. You need to have a plan for that. That's number one. Number two, is access to audience. If you have one of those, in good form, then you can usually get the other one. Having both is ideal. But those are the two things, those are the things that the makers that you're coming to work with, don't necessarily have. And so, if you wanna know what you can be busting your hump to be doing right now, it's getting those things. And then, if you have those and you come to somebody with your big idea and you want them to turn it into something real, you actually have something to offer. JAMON: One of the things that I think Ken and Todd bring to this conversation that I don't necessarily bring to the conversation is I haven't been on the other side. I've been a consultant for a very long time, so I see our side of it. But both Ken and Todd have worked for start-ups, probably who have used consultants. And seen the ones that have succeeded. Ken you worked at Yammer and there was an acquisition that Microsoft made there. And so it was a successful exit. And then of course there are some other start-ups that you and Todd have worked at that failed. That's something that I, maybe, don't necessarily bring that perspective to. But the consultant's side of it for sure, I see all kinds. I see all kinds of start-ups that rise and fall. TODD: I hope no one takes this as a reason not to try, for sure. I would recommend to focus on your customer acquisition strategy and your revenue strategy. You have to remember Zappos when it came out, and if you're not familiar with Zappos, it was a large company and eventually hired by Amazon, and they sell shoes. KEN: Acquired, not hired. TODD: Sorry, acquired, not hired. They sell shoes, which is probably the second oldest profession in the world. (laughter) So, obviously not a new idea. Hey, I have an idea, I'm gonna sell shoes. And you're like, horse shoes? Space shoes? No, shoes, like you put on your feet. But they had some innovation ideas inside there. Mainly extreme customer sport, and the big one was, buy five pair of shoes, send back four. Good ideas, but once again, there's a series of little ideas, like how do we allow them to buy five pairs of shoes and send back four and still make money? There's a hundred and fifty ideas in there, maybe a thousand ideas in there that matter. So it's hard to be an A-list actor, right? But if no one tried, we'd have none. So you can succeed. We get a lot of clients and sometimes their very obvious that they'll see just because they have a lot of experience or they just really understand. But we have people who don't know what they don't know. And don't know what they know yet, and that's fine too. Those people may succeed also. KEN: The number one problem that we see is under capitalization. Over capitalization can be a problem too, incidentally. If you raise too much money all at once then it can lead you to be too profligate. I've definitely seen that at start-ups. JAMON: It's way harder to say no. KEN: Yeah, that's a problem with venture capital backed companies that have just seen a bunch of interest all at once and then they have issues with that. But, under capitalization is definitely a much bigger problem because it means that every single decision you make, you're terrified. TODD: If your problem is over capitalization, please send an email to hello@infinite.red. KEN: We can help you with that problem. TODD: Today's episode is brought to you by, too much money. KEN: I'm actually being serious. (laughter) I mean, we're joking. But I'm also serious. Like, we actually know how to make your money go farther. JAMON: Yeah, and I agree with that. And we can also help with saying no. I think that that's actually one of the things that's probably surprising about working with us, is often we are pushing for not adding features. TODD: This is sounding like a commercial this time. KEN: Yeah, I'm sorry, but we're not the only ones. I'm just saying that experienced people will tell you no. And you need that if you've got a lot of money. JAMON: I think that's an important port, you look at some consultants and their not necessarily pulling in that direction, but we want people to succeed 'cause obviously that looks good on a portfolio. It's a benefit to us. One of the things we've always said, and we tell customers this, if we finish your project early, and don't spend all of your money, I'm sure you're gonna come up with more ideas. You know? It's not like we're gonna miss out. It's never been the case. If we finish a project early, the founders aren't just pocketing the rest of the money and going home. What they're gonna do is say, what about 1.1, let's get on the schedule. Let's move. There's always something else. 'Cause during the process of building an app you learn so much. And there's always more ideas. KEN: I've never seen a software project where at the end people were like, phew, I'm sure glad that everything that we could possibly think of was in that. (laughter) Like, that has never ever, ever, happened. TODD: You never know. There was that app where you just said "Yo" to people. Yo. JAMON: Yeah, didn't they raise a whole bunch of money to add more stuff? KEN: And what happened to that app? TODD: I don't wanna rant about VC. Some VC's ... not all. Some are great. Another thing, going back to your original question Chris, which we've been talking a lot about, is, common things that customers or clients may not understand. Another one is just the pure complexity of software. It's hard to understand because it's not in the real world. You can't hold it. In your house, if you ever owned a house and had work done on the house, you'll know that doing something in your living room is relatively cheap. Doing something in your bathroom is extremely expensive. Doing something in your kitchen is extremely expensive. The reason why a tiny room like the bathroom is so much more expensive than a huge room, say like, your living room. Is because the bathroom has tons of different contraptions in it. Lots of different moving parts. Lots of different things can go wrong, from your sinks to your plumbing, fans, lighting, that kind of stuff. So the number of pieces matters a lot to cost. Because software is virtual and because we can fairly easily throw on pieces. Software tends to be an order of magnitude, or more, complex than any other physical machine. A bathroom, even a car engine, is less complex than software is. KEN: It's compensated for somewhat by the fact that our tools are also more powerful. TODD: Yes. KEN: I mean, there's countervailing things there, but your point about the complexity is right. If you run out of lot when you're building a house, then your contractor says, hey we can't build there, your lot ends there. There's no such constraints for software and that makes it easy for things to get kind of hairy. TODD: If you completely disregard our part in the complexity, meaning we have to build all the moving pieces and test them and make sure that they coordinate together. Even disregarding that, sometimes people are shocked at how much they have to think about, and they're not building it all. If you just said, I wanna login screen, for example. Every app has that. That's simple. Right? The number of questions that you could be asked by someone like us, to someone who's less experienced will be shocking. And they won't have the answers to it. And each one could be thought of. Now of course we always give people common things that they should do, or whatever. But if you were to really think through the whole thing, just that one screen is way more complex than anyone imagines. JAMON: Recognizing our experience, the fact that we've done hundreds of apps and encountered so many different scenarios, I think is important for working with a company like ours. I think back, in prior years, there have been some projects that haven't gone as well. And one of the common traits of those projects is that the person I'm working with, they feel like they kind of know it all, because they do have a pretty big picture of it, and they want to put their vision down into software. It often comes with blind spots of, what are you missing here? So having a high degree of trust and communication between the two parties is one of the hallmarks of a successful project. We certainly respect what the founders bring because they have the vision, a lot of the times they have a much closer relationship with their potential users than we do. KEN: Absolutely. JAMON: We're not trying to impose our view of what that might be. But we can often bring things, like Todd was saying about the login screen. Like, you didn't think of this aspect like what happens if you forget your password, or if you don't have access to your email or something. TODD: Or you're on a plane, or Facebook changed the rules and half the users can't login. That kind of stuff. JAMON: Exactly. TODD: Another thing too, is we sometimes experience this when we get designs outside of our company. Now, a lot of designers are great, but they're never have been trained in, or have experience in software design. Our designers are classically trained designers. They can do all the normal things people think of designs, but they chose to specialize in software and website design. So, sometimes when we get an outside design, we never used to do this, but we kind of now require it. The bare minimum is we'll do a half week of design review. And we did one recently. And from a cursory look at their design, it looked like they had everything. Looked good, seemed to make sense. The design looked fine. But after a half week of a couple of our designers reviewing it, they went through in great detail and produced a map of the whole app and how everything interacts with each other. And the flows and the different actors, different type of users. That kind of stuff. JAMON: There were dozens of screens, right Todd? Like dozens. TODD: There were a lot of screens, and probably half of them weren't in the original design at all. JAMON: It was striking 'cause you could see the outline of the screen, it was empty and there's a title of whatever that screen was supposed to be. TODD: So that's an example of, even at the design part, where you have to factor in all these different scenarios that you may not have thought about. And how the user would experience it if those scenarios happen. And also make a business decision whether or not you're gonna address some of those scenarios. Sometimes you don't because it's a very small minority of your users, edge case as we call it. And it's just not worth ... the ROI and something like that would be poor. So that's something too, where it's just half the app is really missing. JAMON: And that's where, I think having that high degree of trust is really important because then our spidery senses are saying, hey, there's something missing here. Let's spend the time up front, I know you wanna get started right now, but let's spend the time up front to map this out and see if everything is here. CHRIS: I'm actually curious when someone comes to you with an idea, how do you know when to start challenging the idea? And when to write the idea off? KEN: I wouldn't say that there's very many ideas that we would write off. Because lord knows if we knew which ideas were going to succeed in this business, we would be billionaires already. And frankly, the people who are billionaires don't even necessarily know. There is a healthy degree of luck in terms of like, who ends up on which gravy train. But, that said, there's always gonna be a variety of factors that go into whether something is successful. Some of them are universal. And some of them are highly specific. And it's a little bit of a judgment call on which is which, however. We think that things like software quality and good UX, these sorts of things, are basically universal. Like that humans are humans. In those regards, we are going to push for what we think is right. When it comes to the intimate understanding of the customer, the end customer, right, the people that these start-ups are trying to attract. That's where we defer to them. We're always looking for clients who clearly have that intimate understanding of their customer. And this sort of leads into another point, which is that, someone on their team, whether it's the founder, if they're the only ones. Or someone on their team, had better really have that intimate knowledge. And they're gonna have a full time job working with us. Basically. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Right? And that's also something that I think people have not understood. It's kinda like, hey, here you go make the software and I will dip in periodically. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Uh-uh (negative). No. Yeah, you gotta be really committed because you're the one who really understands that like, so we're gonna be working with you to go after this. And we need you, obviously. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Not just to write the checks, but also to tell us who this person is and what they're really gonna need. And sometimes our idea of a universal solution won't work for something specific. But that tension is really important. We're always fighting for those sort of universal values, but we're also listening to hear what specific values are and the ways that they might override universal value. TODD: Yeah, and there's not one right answer and one right design to solve any particular problem. I would pile on with Ken, the people coming to us, the founders or the department heads or whomever they are, coming to us. They really wanna understand the end user and be able to articulate that to us. And over time we learn them too. And some industries have very strong cultures that you have to be within, and if you don't speak that cultural language it instantly turns off those people. It's not just culture, but for example, we did a project for a company called PRO-TREAD, which does training for truckers. I don't know if they're the largest, but if they're not, they're probably closest to the largest in the country. And this traditionally was done if you had a trucking company, you would set up computers in the corner and then when that driver was by their home base, they would sit at that boring computer and do the forced training that they're required to do by law. Not fun. No one wants to do it. The people at the company don't wanna pay for it. Truck drivers don't wanna do it. Of course it does increase safety and stuff, so it's important to do, but it's just human nature not wanna do something that's, you know. JAMON: And I believe, Todd, that PRO-TREAD was one of the first to even computerize it. Before that is was paper tests and in classrooms. So they were kind of moving that direction already. Now this was another iteration of their platform. TODD: Correct. And this is a great example of an idea because it's simple, everyone understands it and it's obvious. Truck drivers spend a lot of time in the sleeper cabs of their trucks. At truck stops and whatnot on the side of the road and stuff. So, obviously making the training mobile was important because the training materials being on a tablet or an iPad was important. Making it not so painful for the person, so that it's not ... If you're the manager telling the drivers that they have to take this testing, getting 50% less push back because it's not as painful is a big deal to you. And also, they do need to not just get through the training material, they do need to understand it and internalize it. It actually does help, even though no one wants to do it. So the basic requirements was, it has to be mobile, it has to work inside of a sleeper cab on the side of I-80. And it still needs to maintain their already high level of guaranteeing that people actually pick up the information, and they had a variety of ways to make sure that happened. And also, be more engaging and not as painful. That was the directive to our designers. JAMON: I believe that when they first came to us they sort of envisioned the app looking basically like their web version and no real changes other than that. And we talked to them, this was a situation where we had a great rapport with the owner of PRO-TREAD and we're able to talk with him and explain where design could really add a lot of value to a touch interface. TODD: Yeah, so we actually did re-design it, not just to make it more mobile appropriate, let's say. But to really push those goals they had. Now, designers and us and them now understood the goals. I just stated them. Fairly straight forward, the goals. However, we can take those goals and we can design to those goals for sure, but we probably don't know truck drivers as well as our client PRO-TREAD does. So them having been in this industry for a very long time, really understood the nuances that would make meeting these goals through design possible. Having them really understand their users, having us really understand how to solve problems. Us having the problems be both simple, straightforward and well defined, that was a successful project and although maybe not as exciting as Uber for gerbils. Because gerbils have to get around too, and no one likes to walk. JAMON: Well gerbils do, actually, don't they? TODD: They kind of do, yeah. And they like tubes. So maybe be like Elon Musk's ... JAMON: Hyper loop. TODD: The hyper loop for gerbils. JAMON: For gerbils. TODD: Yeah, so that's a very exciting, so if we had a client came and said we want a hyper loop for gerbils and we respond, "of course. Who doesn't?" But it's just funny, but teaching truck drivers important lessons is more fulfilling when you know, when it rolls out, there's gonna be tons of men and women out there on the road having a slightly less painful day because of something worked on. And probably saving some lives. It's not as sexy, but it is very satisfying in my opinion. JAMON: Yeah, I totally agree. I actually have five uncles who are truck drivers. Very strong truck driving kind of familial influence. And maybe one or two of them might actually listen to my podcast here. So, hi uncles. (laughter) But what I think is kind of cool about this is I do know truck drivers. I didn't get a chance to work on that project myself, but there's totally a personal connection there. I understand what they go through and the types of things that they care about. TODD: I only have one brother and he owns a shipping company and he has lots of truck drivers, so I'm going to trump your four uncles. (laughter) JAMON: Let's have them fight. They're all six foot four. TODD: Although in the past he did drive, so, but anyways. Yeah. Ken, how about you buddy? JAMON: Any truck drivers there at Harvard? TODD: Aww, pick on the Harvard kid. KEN: No, I don't know any truck drivers. (laughter) You got me. TODD: Today, brought to you buy Captain Obvious. You can cut that, that was a bad joke.

Chris: Yeah, yeah we're rolling. Yeah? Kat: Is there enough light? Okay, no that was already on. I think I'm becoming addicted to light. Chris: You've got it down. All right. Kat: Okay, we're live already. Chris: Yeah ... what? Kat: What, mother fucker- I get ... Chris: You're gonna have to redo it. Kat: I can't redo it. I'd have to- Chris: [crosstalk 00:00:30] Oh, no. No, that one's done. Yeah that's- Kat: This is live. We're already live. What you're saying is being heard. What I'm saying is being heard. Chris: That is so funny. Kat: I think people have heard it before. What's up? Chris: Yes, it's working. Kat: We are technological geniuses. Chris: We just did have it take off a certain [crosstalk 00:00:50]. Kat: We've made ... They didn't do much. Hey, I managed to get the internet working for a second and a half. Chris: Oh my God. Kat: Can we kick this off by telling people the quotes of the day, Chris? Chris: All right we can share this. Yeah, all right. Kat: So should I tell them one from the other day or is it gonna off our buyers? Chris: No, no, no, we share. We're truly authentic [crosstalk 00:01:08] Kat: We're here for authenticity. We are literally about to fu- ... We are about to launch. Am I allowed to swear? Chris: No. Kat: No? Chris: No swearing. Kat: Okay, sorry. We are literally about to launch our supplement. We get to that in a moment but first I'd like to tell you three very informative and important quotes that I've been noting down. Chris just ... This is a man who, when you meet him or you see him, even online, you'll see that he is one of the most genuine good guys in the world. Kat: He is the nicest man in the world. He's one of my closest friends. I love him to death, he is the nicest, sweetest, person. Would never hurt anything and yet he just comes out and then he seems very like ... Wow, that was quite rude. Chris: Sorry, that is true. Kat: So the other day we're like "What should we call our livestream for our prelaunch live stream which shoots on Friday?" And I'm like thinking of creative titles cause I'm awesome at that and he's like, "Can we just call it-" Chris: Headlines are key. Kat: "This is why you're fat and we're not." And I'm like, "Wow." Chris: Because within context as well, we were talking about ... Kat: Please explain. [crosstalk 00:02:12] Chris: How we used to do diets before we used to be massive carbophobes and then over lunch we were talking about how we're just been loving eating carbs but doing it the right way. And how much better in shape we are now. And it's just- Kat: Well this leads me into the next quote which i that well ... Chris: Yeah, nicely done. Kat: Which is that we set up the lighting, and I'm like "Damn, that lighting's good." And Chris goes "Damn, it's good." And he goes, "Or is it just cause we look so good?" I'm just like "Wow, just be matter-of-fact about it." Oh, do you need to share that to your page? Do you need to share that to your personal page? Chris: Yeah. I can, with you. Kat: Okay, so we are ... oh and what was the third quote? Chris: What was the third one? Kat: Damn it, there was another really good one from just a second ago. So there was the one about "This is why you're fat and we're not." There was "Is this lighting really good or it just cause we look really good?" And then there was another one that just happened just then and it was so funny. I nearly wrote it down and then I was like "No, there's no way I would forget that." It will come back to us divinely. Chris: Not sure. Kat: Welcome, welcome, welcome to the show. Chris: We've got some big news. Kat: We have huge news, I think we're not even allowing ourselves to be ... Chris: So exciting. Kat: As excited as we are. I know I think we're not letting ourselves be as excited as we really could or should be about this. I think we're excited and we're like this is a big deal, and I'm just like "No, but do you understand what a big deal it is?" Chris: This is a big deal. This is a really big deal. Kat: Two plus years in the making? Chris: It's even longer. Kat: I think it's three years [crosstalk 00:03:49] ... Chris: We can put this dick ends downs. Kat: I think it's like pre ... dick- really? We started to formulate this before time began in our souls. Chris: Yeah, exactly. Kat: That's how good we are. I got to the quote book, the intelligence was coming through divinely from generations before but in a physical human sense, maybe three years. Chris: [00:04:07] Particularly there's star dust in there. Kat: Well it's actually ... Yes. And gold dust. You get a little piece of my soul. That's some powerful stuff. Look what I've created. Chris: That's really funny. Don't worry about the lighting. We're good. Kat: Yeah, we're good. We're good with the lighting. So we might be a little bit excited. We might be coming across as a little bit extra hysterical than normal, but it is such a huge deal. And welcome, welcome, welcome to everybody. I'm so happy and grateful that you're here with us. Kat: Hello over on our business page and hello on our personal page, and hello wherever else you are. I am either going to talk excitedly in a hilarious or just randomly crazy way for now, or I'm going to just stop and let Chris present with deep profound wisdom. Chris: I'll chime in as well. Oh, always. Kat: All the things. But let's just quickly say ... Okay, Lisa just summed up the whole entire situation. Chris: Wee. Kat: He says, "Wee." That's exactly right. We have an amazing founding deal. Chris: Founding special. Kat: But we're not going to tell you about that now, because we've got too many other exciting things to say. Chris: Yeah, we've got some more important news. Kat: Okay, I'm done. Chris: Okay. Kat: For now. Chris: Well we haven't decided on everything at this moment. So we need to do this together. So this is actually like ... Kat: Co-creation. Chris: Exactly. We all need to come together right now and actually sort this out. Kat: Yeah. So just stop what you're doing, put it down. Chris: Because this is literally the only time you are ever going to get this special at this product, this price, ever. Kat: Ever. Obviously if you've been following Kat for any time and even myself, you'll know that we want to celebrate. Actually, you know what's really interesting? This little bit random, I actually went through the ... See, Kat you're looking gorgeous. Chris: Yeah, I'm all right as well. Kat: No, I think that's definitely for you, sorry. Not me. Oh, thank you. I'm going to take that. I'm taking it from here. Thanks, Lonny. Chris: Kat, how high can you go. Random segue, we actually just reviewed the ... With my other coaching business, reviewed what the key parts of what the most accessible coaches are doing right now. What was ... What have they done? There was two things that was actually really interesting. Chris: One was how long they've been in the programme and why they're succeeding. So it's a common factor, and two, was they always jumped on the programme as fast as possible. Kat: Of course. Fast action takers. Chris: I know, but it was actually really interesting for me to actually see it. Kat: Oh, it was actual research. Chris: Yeah, we actually went through everything. Kat: That's gold. I say that all the time. Chris: The most successful people. No, it's legit. Kat: Oh, hello. Yeah. Chris: Yeah, well, exactly. Fair enough. Kat: We literally became business partners over cauliflower. Chris: Cauliflower and chicken? Kat: I could have make that some more exciting. Well, there was one. But it was a two-second decision, wasn't it? Chris: Yeah, it was. Kat: It was. Oh, then you came around and we talked about it the next day again, but it had already obviously ... Really we're just joking around nothing. We did a hilarious life show together. Chris: Yeah. Kat: But that is so true, and I say that all the time when I'm working with high level badass entrepreneurs and creators. I always say, "I want to work with the people who say 'yes' straight away." Because that's like me, and those are the people who get awesome freaking results. So we're really here today not just to ... With such excitement and gratitude and passion launch our product, finally. Kat: But we're also here ... There it is. We're also here to really honour those people who already know that they want one of our ... Oh, look at Ryan. You couldn't have product placed him any better than the hat. Ryan says, "Is this the one I tried last year at your place? It tasted amazing." I think my second one did have vodka in it. All right, just hold the final ... Let's save the shenanigans part of what you can do with this for later. Kat: Let's just talk pure. In fact, it was very healthy in the process of my training. But yes. So we didn't even prepare that little bit of testimonial earlier at all from Ryan who says it tastes amazing. It tastes freaking amazing. Okay, I'm getting distracted again. Continue on. Chris: Okay. There's a few things that we've all got to sort out right now. One, when you actually have to get onboard these founders special. Two, we're going to share with you actually how much of a discount that you're going to get and that's a lifetime discount as well. So we're going to make this as much of a no brainer as possible. Kat: Oh, I just remembered the other quote. Chris: Oh, what was the other quote? Kat: It was I said to you, "Is that really sneaky?" And you said, "Yeah." I really like it. Chris: Okay, just kind of side note, that was ingenious business strategy that we actually did when you just said we ... Kat: Because I'm a ninja. As I proved to you earlier. Chris: We share that later. We share that later. Keep business strategies coming down on this as well. It's all working. So two things we're going to work out. One, when you actually have to get on board by, because this can only last so long and we're going to have to cut it right now. So this, it's actually going to be pretty limited. Because we can only take so many people on board. Kat: Yeah. Chris: Two, the discount you get, which is a lifetime discount. And you know what? Three, we actually just added in. Sorry, for the first 100. First 100? Kat: Oh, I thought it was going to be 50. You're seriously pulling this up for 100 people? Chris: I want to be really nice, because I wore my give shirt today. Because I want to give. Kat: Oh, I want to cut it off really. I like to make people jump on board or work for it. Chris: No, we'll do 100, because there's a lot of ... Yeah, okay. No. Kat: All right, that means I have a point saved for later to make a decision about something. Chris: All right. You got one brownie for later. One video for later. Kat: I'll get to be in charge of something later. Chris: First hundred people that are going to be coming on board, you're going to get a copy of my book, "Craving the Truth", which is actually the book where I show you how to be able to get into the best shape of your life, and how to not do it by doing depriving diets, which we have right here. Tada. Kat: There it is. Fabulous book. Chris: So you'll get a copy of "Craving the Truth" as well coming on board in this, but we can only do that for the first hundred. Kat: For free. Extra fast action, take a bonus. On top of the crazy discount. Oh, wait. Do we make them pay full price if they're getting a book? Chris: I don't want to have to make them pay full price. Kat: All right. Why not? I was just trying to be funny. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's fine, because my lighting's fabulous. Chris: Yeah. You look good, life is good. So if you want a copy of the book for free, where I give you the diets. We talk work outs. We talk actually what Kat and I are doing. You're going to have to get on board really quick as well, but also, lifetime discount. Can we tell them how much the discount is? Kat: No, make them work for it. Send a love heart shower. Chris: Oh, yeah, I love how you do this. Kat: A load of love hearts, and we're just going to tell them the office straight away. Just like that? Chris: Melissa. Kat: Hi. Chris: Thanks, Mel, appreciate that. Kat: Yeah, there you go. Chris: It's a great pull. Kat: Let's. So we just give ... Whoa, you guys loving the love heart shower. Thank you. Chris: Whoa. Kat: Do you want a comment something hilarious or just comment get on with it already? Chris: Let's have best comment. I will just give you a copy of the book straight away. Kat: I can't talk through this offer, because I'm going to get too giggly and excited like a little kid at Christmas, and I'm not going to get the details right. I'm trying very hard to restrain myself here, but I'm so excited. So Chris is going to tell you the deal with it. It's literally more crazy than what we thought we were going to do. We dropped down an extra ... We actually dropped down an additional ... Chris: No, let's prepare for lunch. Kat: Over an additional 20 percent on what was already the reduced founding members price. Chris: Yeah, it was. Kat: Wait, did you just say they get to lock it in for life? Chris: Yeah, it's lifetime. Kat: I thought we were just giving that for the first month. Chris: Lifetime. This is exactly. Kat: What? Chris: When you get on board, but here's the thing. When you get on board, you get it for life. If you ever leave. Kat: You're out. Chris: Never get it again. Kat: We're never talking to you again. Chris: No. We'll talk to you, but you just want to get the discount again as well. Kat: If you buy us a drink. Chris: You've got to ... You actually get the discount for life. Kat: Yeah, that makes sense. Chris: That's a bit of a no brainer. Kat: That is a no brainer. Couple of no brainers. I'll eat anything that tastes delicious, especially if it helps me look that pretty. Thank you. Chris: Oh, that's really sweet. Kat: That's all the alignment. I'm reverse ageing. When you ordered this product, you will reverse age from between two and five years in the first 10 days. Chris: We can't say that. Kat: Hashtag disclaimer. I just it. Chris: The FDA does not agree with that at all. Kat: Shut up. Chris: I have to be legitimate with this stuff. Kat: I mean it. I mean it, because I decided, and I get what I decide. Can we just bring the mindset side into it? It's fine. When you sign up I'll get you a special training for free on the reverse ageing. How's that for a bonus? Chris: All right. Kat: Oh, let's have that in as a top 100 bonus. I will do a training on how I reverse age for free for the first 100 people, and I'm not kidding. Chris: I'll buy that. Kat: Look at this skin. I'm nearly 50. Chris: That's very funny. Kat: Well I'm 38. I'm nearly 39. But I'm reverse ageing at the speed of light. Everybody knows that. Chris: No, actually ... This gets really good. What we haven't actually said as well is if you get on board this offer today, you will be able to join the tribe. So what we're starting in part is our private tribe, yeah. Kat: Oh, yeah. We're getting to our programme. Chris: It's going to be a little bit ... It's probably something we should talk about right now as well. Kat: Wait, do we actually? No, this is for real now. I'm not pretending. Are we actually giving them that? Chris: Yeah, they get a private group. It's already set up. Kat: Oh, of course. Yes, all right, fine. Onward then. Chris: This is stupid. Kat: Okay, I'm done. I'm done with my talking. I've got the entertainment, and now Chris is going to tell you the deal. The deal is about to drop. We are going to give you a link. You're going to click it, you're going to buy, and you're going to have a glass of water to celebrate, since you don't have the product yet. I'm waiting. Chris: Well you do have to wait. Kat: But we'll drink something in your honour. Chris: You do have to wait. So let's break this on down. Number one, first 100 people, I'll give you a copy of the book and I'll send it straight to you. Number two, you get the discount for life, and it's over 40 percent the discount as well. So that's a bit of a no brainer as well. Kat: We want to make it crazy no brainer for sure, legitimately of course. Chris: Yeah, I know. Three, you get access into ... whilst you have your membership, whilst you're getting this each month sent to you, you have access into the tribe, which is where Kat and I are going to be sharing with you what we do with our food, with our diets, with our training. I'm going to be in there giving you as well, because I've got literally 12 months worth of training, nutrition and lifestyle coaching ready to rock 'n' roll for you. Chris: So you'll get access into that private community where it's members only in there, and then ... Kat: That's got content from both of us, which is combining over 30 years of experience and knowledge and application and results. If you can, have some brain power. Chris: We literally needed a team member to go through how much content we had. Kat: It was several staff members who had to go through that and have been doing it for nine months. Chris: I feel so sorry for Jess actually. Kat: And Mim, shout out to Mim. And Jess too. Chris: And Mim. Yeah, sorry, too. Bingo. Kat: And shout out to Ash and Bron as well who've had so much to do with this launch and does so much work on that. Chris: I wish they were here. I got a notification on my page. Kat: I just was reading it over actually. Really. Chris: Okay, awesome. So you get the book. You get 40 percent discount and that's for life. You get access into the tribe as well. Now what we're going to do ... Kat: We were going to ... Sorry. I know I'm just terrible at cutting you off. I'm the worst at that. But we were going to charge for the tribe. We were going to do it as a separate. Chris: No, we are going to charge for the tribe. Kat: Yeah, but we were going to make it like you would pay a bit extra to get the coaching platform, as well as the product, and then it would be extra, extra for people who just wanted the coaching, which is basically means stupid people, because why would you not buy this? Then we decide to give it for free. Chris: So if we actually boil this down right now. Kat: Yeah. Chris: What the offer is is the super food blend will actually be recommended retail for $97. The tribe, our coaching community that's private for members only, that's actually priced at $50 a month for that. So obviously that's $150 a month, but if you get on board now, can we say it? Kat: Let's just do it. We've dragged it out long enough. They've been waiting and wanting. Chris: If you get on board now, you will get everything, which is sent to you each and every month, and your monthly membership into the tribe, and it's only going to be for $59. So we're cutting off $90 every month, and that's a life time discount going into it. So literally, there's a massive discount. So that's something like ... It's a gigantic discount. Kat: Whatever it is. Chris: First 100 people, I'll send you a copy of the book for free. Kat: And you'll get my reverse ... And you'll get my training on reverse ageing if you're in the first 100 people as well, which is completely serious. Chris: All right, Ricky. So Ricky asked a really good question. Can you consume it if pregnant? Now with supplements, you do technically have to say and you'll see on the back here, "Caution, if pregnant or nursing or taking medication, consult your health care practitioner before use." Kat: It's required to say that. Chris: My Lauren, wife, she has been pregnant with two children whilst taking this and my daughters have this as well. So when they ask for chocolate, they're actually asking for this bad boy. Kat: Yeah, I give this to my kids as well. Who are young as you know. It's required to say that. It's required to obviously that you've got to consult with your medical adviser that. Chris: Yeah, good question. Kat: I would take it. Lauren took it, etc. I just want to also clarify, really we had it locked in that launch offer ... That the retail price, the price that we will be selling it at. It's not just like what we're saying is retail. We will be selling it at $97. We were going to do the founding members offered at I think $79. That was locked in, and that was decided. Even up until last Friday. Kat: We did the pre-launch video and had some fun with that on Friday. You might have jumped on on that. Oh, we were supposed to notify people. I will send them a link after this, yeah. Chris: Yeah, we'll send them. Kat: I can't even remember why we decided to drop it down so much more. I think we just ... We get so excited. We are so proud of this and so excited and it's been so much work and blood and sweat and tears that's gone into this on Chris' behalf. I really just want to honour him. He's an amazing business partner and friend, and the work that he's put in. Literally travelling the Earth to create pharmaceutical great product in the world. Kat: It is literally the most exceptional formulation that you could come up with. Digestive health, probiotics, all this good stuff, but then also, working together with somebody that you're obviously good friends with, that's not automatically enough to make a great business partnership as I know a lot of people know. Chris: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Kat: So it's just been amazing to have a shared vision for something that we're both so excited to bring to life. It's been a little painstaking at times to get to where we're already, but like any amazing vision brought to life, you've got to be willing to go through those periods where it's things are going slow than you want or you thought something was just going to work, and then it didn't. Kat: So it's been quite the journey, and it's been one that's been heavily supported by the people we just mentioned and shouted out earlier as well. So there's a lot that's going into this and it really is. It's such a big deal. It's something that we know that we're going to take for life, be proud of for life. We really trust and belief that when you start to take this, firstly, the taste of it is incredible. It just tastes amazing. It's chocolate flavoured greens powder. It's flavoured naturally with cacao. Kat: It tastes incredible. Every single person who tried it is like, "Holy crap, where can I get this? I want to take this forever." So we know you're going to love the taste, but the benefits and the health side of it, the brain power side of it. The mineral focus side of it. The fact that you're just getting all these good things covered for yourself and your family in one hit. We know that you're going to be part of this for life as well. Kat: So this is something that for long haul it's not just business on the side of our respective empires that we already have. We really see it as a vision for the community that we want to build of like-minded individuals, like us, like you who are committed to being about us in every aspect of life. In business we brain function, and looking and feeling hot AF as well of course. Kelly says can you use it if diabetic. Chris: Yeah, you can. It actually says on here "diabetic safe". Where did I actually have to say that? Here. Last bullet point. No, extras. No extra added sugar. It is diabetic safe. It is only flavoured with stevia. So you only use the really good stuff. Please post the ingredients out. Yeah, Angela if you click the link that you'll get access to ... Kat: We could give the link. Chris: I will give you the link. If you click the link, you'll get access to the page which has the full ingredients on there for you. So you can actually read this rather than me sticking this up to the camera. It's still not being readable as well. Now, what we also have done is we put a 60-day guarantee on this. So we want you to taste it. Kat: That's how confident we are. Chris: We want you to use it. Exactly. That's how much we ... We're a little bit cocky when it comes to this. Because we know it's that good. We've been using it for that. Angela, you're absolutely welcome. So we want you to get your hands off it ... On it. When you get your hands on it, and you start using it, you'll see. You'll actually notice the difference as well. So what you want to be able to do is number one, it's not about supplements. Chris: Now let's just talk right now. I want to jump in and talk about ... Yeah, sorry, go. Kat: Should I give the link or should we give them preparation that I'm going to give you the link, because we are doing this first hundred thing. Chris: Oh. Kat: Let's tell you what we want to tell you, so that you're paying attention, and then we're going to drop the link. Chris: Okay, let's do that. Kat: Yeah. Chris: We'll jam real quick, and then we'll give you the link so that you can get access to all this stuff right now. So I want it in my mouth right now. Kat: All right. Well, it's a sensory experience, and you can tap into the collective energy. That's right here in this space and place. Here is some we prepared earlier. Chris: Jaya, can you put your email below and I will literally send you a copy of my book, because that was the best comment so far. Kat: Comment of 2018 award. We're adding that to our book of hilarious quote. But we will drink some in honour of everybody. You can tap into our collective energy. Chris: Right, cheers. So I'll answer Theo's question. So this is what we're doing. Because we're doing the very first batch, for all of our members with this super food blend, it's going to take between three to four weeks for everyone to get there. So that's why we're doing this founders special. So we want everybody to come on board. Now, and this is what I want to say and this is why it's so important. Kat: Yeah. Chris: It's not about supplement. Kat: That's why we're doing a huge discount. Chris: It's not about the supplements. Jaya, thank you so much. Can someone remind me to send Jaya a copy of that? Kat: Yes, I'll email you right now. Chris: Or just ... perfect. It's not about supplements, okay? So why are we actually talking right now? Why are we starting a health and fitness company? Why are we wanting to help you with this stuff? It's because you want to be able to look, feel, and function great. You want to be a part of the one percent of the one percent. You want to look great. You want to feel great. You actually want to perform really well, and that's not just the body performing on a biochemical level. It's how your brain performing as well, and you're actually enjoying it. Chris: How do we actually do this? It's not just by taking a supplement. Supplement's the cherry on the top, and we're going to be the first people that now run a supplement company to tell you it's not abut the supplements. This is why we're doing the tribe. So we help you, we show you, we teach you. We're giving you actually what's needed when it comes to, what to eat, how to eat, how to set up your lifestyle. What about when it comes to your work outs? When it comes to your movement as well. Chris: So especially when I break it down in the book, I show you the actual workouts and there's a yang and a yin philosophy. So like a yang, this is going to be a white training. A yin, it's going to be a walking. It's going to be your saunas, your ice punch pools, your meditations, all these kind of things. Kat: Yoga. Chris: Yoga. All these things we need to be able to put together. So it's a holistic approach to giving you exactly what you need. That's why when I first ... One of the reasons, our first conversation, we're like, "Hang on, there's a lot of 'supplement companies' out there and they're doing sometimes great products, sometimes crappy products. Let's not even go down that path." What's missing right now? No one's giving you both. No one's giving you here's the great ... Literally world best formulations, raw products, and manufacturing process. Kat: And taste. Chris: And taste. Which is kind of the most ... It's not technically the most important thing. But it's the most important in the sense that you're not going to take it if it doesn't taste amazing. It tastes so good that you just ... You want to have more. You just want more. I was crying when mine ran out. My samples that I had at home. Kat: Yeah, I had to get more for Kat. Chris: I had to have a massage to get over it. Kat: And a meditation, and some prayer. Some prayer. Then I may have harassed him over what's happened. I literally once was tapping in from every city around the world going, "So can you send some to New York? How about Florida? How about Texas? How about LA?" Chris: I tried to send it to her in two different cities. Kat: But I kept moving too quickly. Chris: And it kept missing. Kat: Come in San Diego, take me around. Chris: Obviously what I want to get across to make sure that we do this right is while we're doing the tribe is so literally Kat and I can give you what's needed to be able to make sure that you look, feel and function the way that you want. It is literally like that. Then when you want to put the cherry on top, when you want to perform. Because this is the thing and I talk about this. Chris: Number one, that our food quality that get isn't as good as it should be. You're not getting all the nutrients. You're not getting everything that you really need at the end of the day to be performing your best. We have high stress levels in our modern lifestyle. We have a lot of chemicals in our environment that help us become toxic. So we want to be able to become un-toxic. We want to be able to get rid of that stuff. Chris: So this is why we started with literally a greens formulation. But it's not a greens formulation. This is ... Kat: So much more. Chris: A super veggie type antioxidant blend. It's got a fruit antioxidant blend. It's got digestion support, and it's got a probiotic blend in here as well. So this is why we want to try and you come at this, because the thing at the end of the day is I don't want you to have a covered or room full of supplements. You want a handful of things, and that's what we're going to be doing, Kat and I together. We're going to be coming together. Kat: There would be new products. Chris: And are really doing a few products that give you the biggest bang for your bucks. So you can actually get on with your life. Because what I don't like is trying to do so many different things, that when we have more important things to do, I don't want to be worrying about my diet, or my work outs, or I'm not looking as I good as I feel like I should be. Or all that kind of shit. Chris: I'm a dad. I am running businesses. I want to be able to enjoy life. I want to be able to have us come together and just have fun. I don't want to be absolutely hating life because I'm doing a dive. Kat: You want to look and feel your best and be your best, and be fitting everything in but doing it just with ease and flow as well. We both, this is another thing. We've both done the hustle life before. I love the word hustle by the way. For me that means something powerful and flow based, but what I mean is we've both done business and life and fitness in way where it was kind of burning yourself out or pushing beyond a healthy limit and that's nothing I look back on and regret, because it made me into who I am now. Kat: But at this point in my life, and for both of us as well, it gets to be about having it all whilst operating at a level of excellence. Feeling your best, looking your best, being at your best, and having it jus be flow and ease. So there's already so many things that each of us do and support our communities to do that create that just through lifestyle and the way we choose to live our lives and live according to our values and so on. Kat: This just takes it to that next level. It's about enhancing a way of life. So that's again another reason why we've created the tribe to go with this to support you with the education, the information, and the empowerment, to get the results that you need. So we will be giving you the nutritional information literally over 30 years or at least over 25 years of combined experience between us. Chris: Over 24 years. Kat: At a really high level as well, where both of us really dedicated our money and our time to learning and studying with the best people in the world, and that's how we met. Through classes around the world. We're bringing you the most cutting edge, real nutrition information, hormone information, fat loss information, digestions, stress management, sexual energy and libido as well. All ties in together. Sleep quality. Kat: Mindset, of course, right? The ins and outs of the trainings side of it as well as the nutrition side of it, and we're teaching from a standpoint of full life in a way that feels amazing. It's not a freaking diet. It's not a quick fix. It's not do this for six weeks or 12 weeks. We're bringing to you our combined experience of well over two decades, and where we can look back and go, "We did all that crazy stuff and maybe you did as well." Kat: It is what it is. Now we actually have a way of living where we get to look and feel and function at a standard of excellence 24/7 always. It's just how it is. We don't sacrifice anything in order to look our best and feel our best. We know that you don't have to as well. So this is not come on board, our magical diet that's going to fix you, and then you're left floundering afterwards, rebounding back. Kat: This is make some small simple adjustments that are going to immediately feel amazing for you. You're going to be immediately be elevated internally and in your energy and your emotions, and even dare I say spiritually, because of course it heightens everything. You're going to see those physical shifts and changes as well. I get asked all the time. I know Chris gets asked all the time, "How we can be such busy, successful entrepreneurs both with our own families and small children, and still get to have ... be in great shape and be legitimately healthy and brimming with energy, and have the energy to do all those things?" Kat: That's so easy. We let it be so easy. It's such a small amount of time or energy that creates such a massive return on that. So everything that this is about. Like Chris said, it's not just a supplement. It's you get this amazing supplement and you get everything that since ... Yes, hold it up. Everything that's inside of us that we've taken all this time and effort and working with literally tens of thousands of clients between us over the past, decade plus, in order to just know what works for life. Kat: So I said at the start of this that I feel like I can't fully express what a big deal it is, and I feel like maybe I'm now starting to express what a big deal it is. But should we? Do you want to add something there or should we give them this link? Chris: I think we should give them the link. Kat: I don't know why I feel nervous. So hang on. Chris: It's good. Kat: Should we give them the link to the Facebook group as well or we just give them this link? Chris: No. Kat: No. Chris: The what? Kat: No, the one from the other day I meant. All right. We'll figure that out later. Chris: Oh, no, give them that link. Kat: Okay, so now, are you ready? Are you excited? Are you eager? Are you going to send me another love heart shower? Are you ready to click by pull out your credit card, get it at the ready, and here's what you're going to do. In about 19.5 seconds or however long it takes me to stop talking, I'm going to ... Which could be 19.5 years. I'm going to put this thing into the comments here. Kat: You are going to click the link. You are going to grab your credit card. You're going to run to the back of the room, and you're going to purchase this product. Chris: All right, hang on. Kat: Hang on. You're only supposed to say three things. That's what I'm telling from this stage, wait. Get your credit card, click the link, buy the product, be in our top 100, get Chris' book for free. For being a fast action taker badass, just like we are, you know your life is going to change for life, and you get a free book as well. It is amazing. And you get my free training on reverse ageing. Chris: I'm really excited for that. Kat: Me too. Yeah. I'll give you the link. I'm ready. This is it. This is it. This is the moment of truth. Chris: They just want us to getting it taken out really quick. I would literally be ... Kat: Yeah, I'd be running to the back of the room or to wherever your credit card is. Chris: Oh, God. Oh, shit. Just happened. Kat: We just? Did we just break the internet. Boom, boom, boom. Okay, I feel like we needed to prepare the drummer as a roll sound. I could have played when I did that. I actually feel like I need to take a breath. Chris: Oh, that's good. Oxygen's really good as well. To set fire. Kat: Can I just add that to quotes? Quotes from Chris. Oxygen is really good for you. Okay, what else are we going to say? Chris: Oh. Kat: Oh, did you tell them to comment there? Or are they just saying how it is over there for the fun of it? How did that just start happening? Chris: I don't know. Kat: Is it because they clicked this? Chris: I have no idea. Kat: What happens? Chris: Yes, it is. Kat: Oh. Chris: Oh, we can see everyone coming through on this one. Kat: We can see who's signing up. Chris: Going up. Kat: Go, go, go, go, go. Oh, we can see all the notification. Chris: I didn't ... This is ... Kat: Tamara's in. Michelle clicked the link. Sarah clicked the link. Chris: That's really funny. Kat: Come on, keep going. All right, and oh, when is this? Ooh, Thalika. She's on it. Just on it. Chris: Laura. Kat: All right. This is so exciting. Chris: This is so fun. Can I share? This is more exciting. I remember when I did my very first online fitness launch. Kat: Laura can't click. Chris: I had the PayPal app on my phone. And when I did the launch, it was like my PayPal app on my phone make a little ding noise. Or no, like a payment would have gone through. This is more exciting because it's a hell of a lot more people coming through. Kat: Sage says, "I can't click." You might have to try different device, because people are definitely clicking. And it's working. So how's this, though? It is so exciting. Last night I was out with a friend, and she's like, "So, what are you doing tomorrow? I'm like, "Oh, yeah. I'm doing whatever and whatever." Then I'm like, "Oh, and I'm just launching a supplement company with my friend Chris till 11:45. Kat: It's like, "Wow, this is huge." That would be huge. We're just quickly launching a supplement company that we're going to take. Angela says, "I can't click on iPad." What can we do about that if people can't click on some devices? Do you have it? Because this is the mo ... Do you have a different link? A longer one? Chris: Can you comment back then or? Kat: No. Chris: PM them? Kat: Do we have a different version of that link? Chris: No. Kat: No, I don't know what to do about that. Ash and Bronwyn, are you on? Chris: What's your problem? The request to the group. Theo. Did you click the link Theo, that Kat has just given you? Kat: Okay, one second. We tested this 1600 times. We will not be swayed. I'm clicking it now. Chris: It's definitely working. We're seeing people still coming through. Kat: Okay, so when I click that, it goes me to Facebook messenger. Chris: Don't worry, Theo. We'll get your link. IPhone can, iPad can't. Kat: It's taking me to Facebook messenger when I click it. Is that right? Chris: Yeah. Kat: Then where is the link that they're going to get that message to them? Chris: The link to ... Yeah. So we'll send you to Facebook messenger, and then Bronwyn said type it in. Kat: Then you've got to press get started. Chris: Then I should maybe put zero admin. Yeah, see, there you go. Kat: Okay. So when you ... We thought we tested it all, whatever. So when you click it, it's going to take you to Facebook messenger. It may not work on the iPad. Then it's going to ... Then you're going to click get started, and then it's going to start, "This is MBB Bot. The My Body Blend's Messenger System." Chris: Oh, my God. Kat: It will say it in that voice. Then it will say, "Do you really want access to a secret launch of Super Food Blend?" It will say it in that voice. Then you'll press "hell yes," which I'm doing now. Hell yes, I just did it. Now it says, "Awesome Katrina, click the prelaunch of verboten below to get our one-time only freelance offer for ..." Okay, I feel that we're being repetitive. For our brand new Super Food Blend. Kat: Plus, if you think there's anyone else who might need to know. I mean why would you take him in unless you want them in the top 100? So now I'm clicking that link, wait for it. Shana says, "Get started." I see you guys on it, just on it. Chris: It's really cool how I can see you from one and then comes through to the other one. Kat: This is a genius. Chris: Theo, you figured that out, great job. Kat: This is a genius strategy. I just got through the sales page. Chris: Can't believe this works. Kat: Right here, live, on this live stream. There it is. Chris: So this is only for the private launch. So obviously once this gets closed down, you're not going to get ... Kat: Take it out. You can't get in on this deal again. Chris: Yeah, you can't get access to this, because we can't keep this up forever. Kat: So talk them through what are they going to receive once they then signup and purchase. Chris: Cool. Kat: Because just a reminder that the product is going to come. Explain all that. Chris: Yeah. So obviously the founders special with what we're doing today is we're doing our very first batch, and you're going to be a part of this. So it's going to take three to four weeks for you to get your actual first Super Food Blend delivered. We're going to be sending it straight to you, but that's why we also have the MBB tribe. So the tribe is going to be where Kat and I are going to be in there making sure that you get access to what's going to be the right meal plan, the right workouts. Chris: I'm going to be in there doing live streams, answering your questions. Kat's going to be talking about anti-aging. Plus, if you get in first 100, which honestly it might be taken up already. I don't know, you're going to have to just get on board. Kat: Just go, go, go. Chris: I'm going to give you a copy of "Craving the Truth". That's going to break down literally what you need to be doing with your meals, with your workouts and lifestyle, and what we're also going to be doing is this special that you get access to today is for life. If you stay on board with this, that means you get this lifetime discount. Chris: So normally Super Food Blend. This has got the RLP of $97 just for one. The actual tribe, that sells for $50 a month. That's $150, but you get access to it today for only $59. So that's a massive discount. I don't know percentage was, what it is, because I'm horrible at math and that's okay. Melissa. Yay, got my confirmation email. So there we go. Kat: Yay, celebrate. Chris: It's coming through already. So that's fantastic. So we want to make sure that everybody come on board because we've got a couple wait up our sleeve. Like tomorrow I'm going to be jumping on board doing a live show, walking you through how we actually get the right meal plan, because what we start with, this is a little bit of secret sauces, how I kick start fat loss is what I do is we do a 14-day metabolic restart. Chris: So what we do is actually in the first 14 days we actually get your body to learn to burn body fat. Now most people are trying to talk about how do I speed up my metabolism? That's actually the wrong question I believe, because let's think about the analogy of driving a car. People are saying, "How do I speed up my metabolism?" They're just thinking about, "How can I drive my car faster?" But what if your car is actually heading in the wrong direction? Chris: So you just say, "Going in the wrong direction faster." So what we got to do first is make sure that you go in the right direction, which is how do you get your body to actually tap into body fat stores, how do you actually burn body fat for fuel. Then we talk about actually speeding our fat loss. But what we do is once we actually get your body tapping into body fat stores effectively, then we actually start talking about stress. Chris: So what the biggest problem is to me people are stressed. They've got too high cortisol levels. They started throwing other things like testosterone, pregnenolone, all these ... Actually, let's not go down the whole monogram, because that's going to be too complicated right now. But what we're going to do is we turn your body into actually being able to burn body fat for fuel first, then we talk about actually being able to lower stress. Chris: So what you'll find is most people when first getting the guides and plans I'm going to be sending through to you, think it's too easy and there's not enough. But you'll find that your body will actually be able to lose weight faster, because we're doing things easier. Because what's the biggest problem so many people fall into and I know we've done it before is you decide that you're going to lose weight. So what do you do? Chris: You cut your foods down, you ramp up your workout. Kat: Do some drastic random stuff. Chris: You do more, more, more, more, more, and then what happens when you hit the plateau? Because you will hit hit the plateau. Kat: What happens is you crack it and eat a freaking container of cookies. Chris: Yeah, exactly. Kat: If you're a woman. Chris: If you're a man as well. Kat: I never did this. Chris: I did. Kat: Okay. Chris: That's the big problem. So you wind up crack it, and you start binge eating, and then you feel guilty, and that's bad. So mentally that's bad. Or you actually have to start eating less and less and less, because you're trying to get to that deficit. So what we do is we say, "Let's actually do a bottoms up approach." So let's start from the bottom and we actually build your food, so you'll see that we actually increase your food intake. So you're actually eating more and losing weight, because the whole just eat less move more scenario, it's a myth. Kat: Boring. Chris: I wrote a freaking book about the myth of it, and it's not fun at all. Kat: Yeah. I just love everything you said. I love how you're just on a ... Did this stuff just comes out of you because you're so passionate about it and you know it so well? Chris: I know I did it wrong for so long. Kat: It is what we live and breathe. It is just ... I think you can see your passion coming through right, and you're just going to continue to get so much more of that and all of our knowledge and learning and support and accountability through being part of this tribe. So originally we will ... completely keep them two separate products. The coaching platform versus the product. Kat: Then we're like, "No, of course we're going to honour the people who buy this amazing thing, and really are committed to change their lives, not just to taking a supplement." The thing is I don't know. There's so many more things that I probably could say. But I think we've kind of covered the best of it, and we're just so excited to welcome you. We can see people ... Thank you and it says thank you. Kat: We can see people over on ... So we've got Chris. My friend here and Chris' friend here. Chris' friend is hooked up to the My Body Blend's page. So that's where you go when you click the link, you'll go to the Facebook messenger of the My Body Blend's page which is our joint business page. You'll then follow the prompts there, and you'll jump on to the sales page that way. So we can see people's responses that are coming up on his phone, which is super cool. Kat: So this is ... It's just huge. It's the bringing to life of something that's been several years in the making in the physical sense. 10 plus years of friendship in the making, decades of learning and knowledge in the making, something I always wanted to do. Something I know Chris always wanted to do, and what an incredible thing to be able to do this with somebody who you have such a close friend in your life, but who you know is also going to deliver the level of support and empowerment for your tribe, that you would do yourself. Kat: That's just such a huge big deal when being in business is somebody else to know that their work ethic and how they shop and their level of passion and commitment to change people's lives is the same. So this is the beginning of an amazing journey for you. If you are joining us, how long will we be keeping the founders special open for? Chris: I only wanted to do ... Kat: We had a little fight about it. Chris: Yeah. That's all right. We're allowed. But what about if we do for just 24 hours? Kat: What? Chris: No, we don't do it in 24 hours. Come on, I'm not the queen of scarcity. I'm making people move fast, but I feel like we could give them. But it doesn't matter, because you would just click and buy it now anyway, otherwise you would have been in the top 100, and you'd be a crazy person. Kat: Well how long do we let this video run for then? Because we have to take this video down. Chris: I feel like I don't know what the answer is that I'm supposed to say now. I feel like we didn't rehearse this properly. That is because we didn't rehearse it. Kat: We didn't. Chris: Yeah. I didn't really walked in and be like, "Let's do it with the camera on." Kat: Let's just turn the camera on and see what happens, apart from running down funny quotes. Chris: What do you want to say to them? Kat: Did you see that I've written down your quotes over here? I've saved it. I've written down the three quotes so far from Chris if you missed the quotes earlier. The quotes were this. He wanted to call our live show "this is why you're fat and we're not". That was one of my quotes of the year from Chris. Another one is that really sneaky? Me asking about a little Ninja trick. He's like, "Yeah." Chris: We just don't cover a really good Facebook ad strategy. Kat: That is good. Chris, that lighting is so good, Kat. Wait, no, it's just because we look so fabulous. That's my personal favourite. Chris: I'm so happy with that. Kat: Well, I think this is it. Chris: All right. We're going to get busy. Kat: Okay, is this? This is? Chris: Yeah, I know. I just saw these already gotten on board. Kat: I didn't ... See, that didn't happen for me. But if you have any issues or concerns at all, or anything doesn't work for you, maybe test it on a different device. Some people did say it doesn't. Didn't work on iPad. I'm not sure why that would be, but it's definitely working for me on my laptop. It's working on the phone. Of course you compare either of us. Or the My Body Blend's page as well, which is probably the best place to go, because then you'll get supported by our team as well and get answer as quickly as possible. Kat: Seeing infomercial broker, I feel like we got so much gold content. You know what's going to happen now. My team will chop up this live stream, get some clips out of it, caption them up, and we'll just be promoting and having a hilarious time. Shouldn't business and life just get to be fun as well? So that's part of our philosophy and part of what we're here to show you. Chris: You're not having fun, you don't enjoy the life. Kat: You can bet your bottom dollar we're going to be having all sorts of shenanigans in that group once you're in there. Because it's how it should be. That's how it gets to be. All right. Chris: Oh, good. Theo got ... Kat: Oh, you're on. Perfect, Theo. Chris: Confirmation done. Kat: Yay, I'm so excited. Chris: All right, awesome. So we've actually got to get to work, because we've got a lot of members. Kat: Just casually launched a supplement company on a Monday morning in Bali. All right, we're going to go hangout with our members. We're going to see what's up. We're going to see you on the inside, click the link, do the thing, be in the thing. We'll see you in the thing. We love you. Chris: Ciao. Kat: Bye.

In this episode of Building Infinite Red, we are talking about cultivating and nurturing community, specifically what goes into forming a healthy community, such as setting boundaries, avoiding neglect, and not taking your community for granted. Episode Transcript CHRIS MARTIN: One of the things that has impressed me with Infinite Red has been the value placed on cultivating and nurturing community. So to start, from your individual perspectives, why is community important to you? JAMON HOLMGREN: I think it's important because that's sort of how we met. We were all part of a Ruby Community, we were contributing to the open source within that community, and we were collaborating on some things. So from the very beginning, it was like, the community itself was kind of the fun part. I mean the technology was fun too, you know, don't get me wrong, but community was such a great part. It allowed for some opportunities including the ability for me to meet Ken and Todd and then of course, eventually get to know them. And so, we saw the value of community right from the very beginning, even before Infinite Red came to be. TODD WERTH: I would agree with everything that Jamon said. Obviously, it's how we met each other. Open source community, speaking at conferences, which is a community event. I met a lot of my, I would call friends through such communities. But more than that it's a way for us to be part of something that's bigger than ourselves, bigger than our little company here and associate ourselves with like-minded people. And I tend to choose communities and hopefully I'm building communities of people that I respect and feel good associating myself with. CHRIS: How would you define community? Because community is one of those words that, we all use the word but do we all mean the same thing when it comes to using the word? TODD: I don't know what the definition of community is. Ken will know exactly I'm sure but to me it's just people who've decided to group up together around a particular ideal, a particular subject, a particular interest. I guess I could sum it up for myself, when I need something or want to express something, this group of people is the first people I want to express that to or ask for help from. KEN MILLER: It's a tough thing to define right? It's one of those sort of squishy concepts, you kind of know when you see it. But trying to pin it down to what exactly is community, what isn't community is pretty hard. For us, community has largely been centered around open source. That is a very particular kind of community. But I'd say it's narrower than that too, right? It's not like we're talking to Linux developers, we're talking to people who have similar professional experiences to us. And that has always been the case. Like you kind of flock to people who can kind of understand your pain. And so, for us, contributing back to the community in the form of sharing insight, in the form of sharing code has always been about saying, "Hey, you know what? We feel your pain, let's make it better together." JAMON: And one of the unique things about the community that we have been a part of is, it's never been about location. There's a community here in Vancouver, Washington. There's a larger community in the Portland metro area. And we're certainly a part of that. I go to meet ups, I go to events here in Portland. And they're good. And you do get to meet people and you have a commonality of location and also to a great degree, interest or technology or whatever it is that you're centered around in a meet up. But our community hasn't been about that, with the Infinite Red origin story. Ken and Todd, did know each other because of location, but it had already become remote before that. I remember when I first started building some open source, one of the people that kind of quickly became a part of my little community there was a guy that actually still works for us here, Mark Rickert. He started contributing and he was over on the East Coast and I believe, South Carolina at that time. And he came in and contributed and we had a lot of great conversations and bonded on some things. There are a lot of interests that were similar at that time. And it was really great because the community could be centered around something other than just location, which I think is something maybe a little bit more new in the past. TODD: It was kind of interesting. So you asked that question, which is difficult to answer, but as we talk more, which is a great thing about conversation, new things are coming to my mind. Community can mean very different things and we all belong to many different communities. One is around physical things. Jamon meant some location, but it could be, you belong to a community of men over six foot four, and you have your own, I'm speaking about Jamon here (laughter), you have your own problems and when you discuss things, there's a camaraderie that comes from a shared experience of a real thing. JAMON: Hash tag, tall people problems. TODD: Yes, a lot of communities, they've grown from a seed of an idea or an ideal and that's probably more common in a lot of the communities we, well, most of the communities, from a professional standpoint, that we either contribute to or belong to or even, in some cases, create are around ideas and shared interest and that kind of stuff. CHRIS: In what ways have you intentionally grown community? You've talked a little bit about open source projects, but what are some of the other ways that you have done that? TODD: We use a product called Community Miracle Grow. JAMON: It works great. One of the things that occurred to me, I think it was, I don't know, a year and a half ago or something like that, was that we had this community. It had already kind of come to be, but there wasn't really a standard place for them to congregate. There were people who were kind of fans of our open source work, who understood what we were doing. They were interested in our conference. We created a Slack team. Slack of course, being the chat system that we use and we created a community version of the Infinite Red Slack. So people could sign up at community.infinite.red. They could go in there. There were different channels that kind of group people based on what they were interested in. Of course, there were some that were more popular, the Chain React channel, the Ignite channel, which is our open source React Native, boilerplate CLI system and also just React Native in general. We pushed the community just to see if there's interest. And there was a lot of interest and we are able to also do some things like, people had some questions about Ignite. In this Ignite CLI, it actually directs you to our Slack channel and we have gotten to know some of those people and also have been able to lean on some of our community members to answer questions and diagnose issues. And things like that. TODD: It's totally off topic. But I love how effortlessly Jamon inserts plugs first off into the podcast. It's inspiring. (laughter) JAMON: My Twitter handle is @jamonholmgren. (laughter) TODD: Well done. KEN: That was not quite as smooth, but I still like it. JAMON: Once you edit it, it will be smooth. CHRIS: One thing that is interesting is, how to you view Twitter in terms of community building as well? KEN: Double-edged sword. Well, actually like the handle is a double-edged sword to a double-edged sword. JAMON: Twitter is an interesting one. KEN: Yeah. Twitter is an interesting place. TODD: I, personally, don't have an answer to that. Back when I used to promote my own personal brand, I used Twitter a lot and that seemed straightforward to me. But I got to a point, this being my third and final company, hopefully, for my life, where I'm much more interested in promoting Infinite Red than myself, and I have not figure out how to do that. I think Jamon does it much better so he probably has lots more interesting to say. KEN: Jamon does it by being genuine, is the thing, right, he's just there, he's being genuine. He's not shy about promoting stuff that we're doing, but he's also not a spam feed. JAMON: Yeah. If I am spamming something like I have been this podcast, to be honest, I will kind of acknowledge that upfront. Like, "Hey, I was spamming this. It was just released. Give me a break." I'll back off after a bit. I enjoy Twitter. It's opened up a lot of opportunities for us. Twitter's been a platform for us and it's been good. I love showing off my team's work and I had a one of my team message me the other day and said, "I love how you're always promoting your team. Telling other people about what your team's doing." That was someone on our team. I feel like there's a lot of really great work being done and nobody wants to talk about it at Infinite Red. So I guess have to because I want people to know what we're doing. It's very cool. You know, this podcast in a way sort of came out of Twitter in some ways. It initially started with my friend, Kyle Shevlin. He and I were chatting a little bit and I was kind of lamenting that, "I don't do much code anymore, so I don't have a lot to talk about when it comes to answering questions on Twitter or kind of talking about various things." He was like, "Well, what about the business stuff that you're doing? That's interesting to people." He was just like, "You have a lot talk about." And so, I put out a tweet saying, "Hey, if you have a business question, if you have anything. You know, I've learned a lot in the amount of time that I've spent doing this." And I got a really good response. A lot of people asking questions. It was really cool. And then the best part about it was that I could bring it back to Todd and Ken and show them the tweet and they would monologue for a bit or dialogue for a bit. And we would go back and forth and at the end of that, we would have something really interesting to say. And I could put that out there. It had my name on it, but I try to be careful about always tagging Ken and Todd in the tweets and saying, "this is kind of a amalgam of all of our responses." And it worked really well and then once we kind of you had that experience then we said, "Well. you know what? We do have a lot to say. And so, since we have a lot to say, why don't we actually say it in a little different medium." I mean that's this podcast. So Twitter has been very influential in a lot of ways and some ways, responsible for this podcast. But definitely a shout out to my friend, Kyle Shevlin for sparking that idea. KEN: Jamon is like my Twitter agent. (laughter) Like I have more followers because Jamon has like quoted me than from anything I've ever actually tweeted myself. JAMON: Ken's a pretty private person and he has a lot of incredibly insightful things to say that will forever die in a Slack channel somewhere, if I don't go out there and say it. (laughter) So. Yeah. I can't help myself. KEN: Honestly, I feel very lucky to be co-founders with Jamon. TODD: Yeah. I agree with that. JAMON: Awww, thank you. KEN: Because you'll go out and do that kind of thing and it's just totally natural for him. It's not like we're pulling teeth to make him do it but it means that it gives us the kick in the behind that we need in order to get out there and talk to people. TODD: I agree. CHRIS: I think what's interesting though is as you're talking though, Jamon's one type of person that you would need in community. Ken, you're obviously the other type. And then there's Todd, who's the jokester that that brings the lightness and levity to the community so it's like, I guess community makes sense in this context with the different personalities. KEN: I was seriously hoping that you're going to say, "Well, nobody really needs Todd." CHRIS: Well, Todd has feelings. And so, we want to make sure that we acknowledge those. KEN: It's not true. We totally need Todd. But Todd...it would have been amusing. (laughter) JAMON: In that context. Leave the jokes to the professional. KEN: Leave the jokes to the jokester. JAMON: But one thing I want to say before Todd jumps in here, is Todd is the sort of you know, he keeps things light and stuff like that but he always has very strong convictions, very strong things that drive who he is and that comes out in our community very much so. That's a very core piece to our community that I appreciate about Todd. TODD: So I want to clarify a few things. A, Todd does not have feelings. (laughter) No, I'm just kidding. You know, it's interesting because I'm a very outgoing introvert, which is funny. And I have no shame whatsoever, but for some reason, I don't promote as much as I used to in the past. I don't know why. I'm glad we have Jamon to do that. This is inside baseball so maybe not very interesting to people but ... JAMON: Todd, you were pretty good about promoting Infinite Red before I joined. TODD: That's true. JAMON: Infinite Red from our perspective. Because we were kind of first to the RubyMotion scene. I think Todd and Ken came in a little later, but they quickly kind of grew like a plague all the way throughout. (laughter) Okay, that's the wrong analogy. KEN: No, keep that. JAMON: They grew very quickly throughout. And it was a very intentional thing now that I know Ken and Todd, I know it was intentional. It wasn't just a happenstance. TODD: I guess this podcast is lot about us. I always feel weird talking about just our perspectives and stuff but Jamon's comment about us, growing like a plague is true. And I think one of the things that I've learned being a ... So I started out pretty shy, introverted person, but one of the things I learned is don't wait for people to invite you to communities, invite yourself, wedge yourself in every ... And just keep on wedging and until a point where they're like, "Was Todd ever not here? I don't remember." Even though I was one of the last people to join, I feel like I was always there just because of shamelessly, endlessly, relentlessly wedging myself into every every situation. KEN: Well, we live in a world where, for a lot of things you don't really have to ask for permission. You want to make a library, make a library, publish it. You want to make a newsletter, make the newsletter, start publishing it and invite people to join it. I think for a large stretch of my career, I would kind of sit around thinking, "Well, I'm not sure if I'm the right one to do this." There's this sort of, I guess it's kind of an imposter syndrome. It's kind of just the shyness, just the laziness to a certain degree. And what we found was like, if you just show up, and you start you know sharing what you have, sooner or later you're going to find people who are interested and that's what's happened. JAMON: And I think there are a lot of people on our team that are more like Ken than Todd and I. You know, Todd and I don't have imposter syndrome in that same way. (laughter) We tend to be maybe a little over confident in some ways. But our team is probably a little more, at least many on our team are more like Ken. But it's great because they add so much value and we can kind of bring them in to the community through their association with Infinite Red and the things that were doing. That is a way of building a community, is to bring people along with you and kind of promote and show them that ... Show other people that they do belong. TODD: I agree that Ken represents a lot of people in our community, in the development community. Not necessarily the designer community. We talk a lot about developers but we also have designers and stuff. You know, I'm 46 years old I've been doing everything in this industry for now, 20 some years and I have evolved a lot over time. The truth is I'm never going to be invited to the country club. Never gonna happen. Just reality. My attitude always been, "Fine, I'll just buy it someday." (laughter) You know that's obviously just kind of a metaphor, but the point is: invitation is overrated. That's all I'm saying. KEN: I was always a very shy kid. I have a six-year-old daughter and there was something that I have observed about her because she's actually kind of different from me. It's a bit of social skills that seems to come naturally to her that I am a little envious of, but it represents what we're talking about here. So I remember there is an occasion where we are at a playground and they had one of those tires swings, where the tire is horizontal and it's got like three chains that support it so you could kind of go in every direction. And there was some kids there, who were playing on it and they were, I don't know three, four years older than her. There were calling over to their parents to come and push them, the parents were like talking and ignoring them. And so Luna just comes up and starts pushing them. Doesn't ask. She just starts pushing them and the kids are like, "Oh, okay." And they invited her to come up on the swing with her after that because she didn't ... She just did it. But she did it in a way that was like, "Hey, I'm gonna help them." Or she didn't ask to help them, she just helped them and maybe that doesn't work in every circumstance but it seems like it's going to work in a lot of circumstances, where if that's how you introduce yourself to people, they're going to trust you in a way that they wouldn't otherwise. TODD: So that brings up a great point. One of the things for instance at our conference, Chain React. One of my kind of high GAFOs or one of the things I cared about a lot, was to actively try to include everyone in the conference in the conference. A lot of conferences I see is just a small group of cool kids and the rest of people sitting in the corner and inspecting potted plants, myself included. So since I was part of creating a conference how do we minimize the cool kids and maximize the majority. And so when we're building community, the people like Ken‘s daughter, don't need our help. They'll just naturally join and be part of it and that's wonderful. But I gave a lot of thought on how to get the rest of the people because you could go to a conference and you could have the worst presentations, the worst content in the world, but if you are actually included in a way that you naturally aren't, you're going to go away loving that experience. And so, that's actually one of my personal goals in life is how to bring that experience that the cool kids get naturally to the majority of people. KEN: Well, and I think the most advance version of that is to enlist the cool kids as social instigators. Take their natural social skills because that's usually what that is, right? And have them come and bring everybody else along on the fun and games. JAMON: I read an article a little while ago, where a grade school student was kind of bullied and sort of kind of ostracized at her school. And she ended up moving to a new school and someone said, "Hey, come sit with me." at the cafeteria. And it was one of the cool kids. And she ended up making an organization that promotes come sit with me and basically go out and find these kids that seem ostracized, that nobody likes, whatever and just invite them to come sit with you at the cafeteria because it can change lives. And I actually sent that over to my son just saying, "Hey, you know ... " Because kind of ... He's looked up to at his school and he's a very kindhearted person. And he really liked the article too. And I think that that was something that he can do at his school. That's definitely something that we still, as adults, there's still that dynamic of come into the group. So we really cared about that with Chain React and that definitely came across I think. TODD: And our Slack community and some other communities. The great thing about out community is whether it's a developer community, the designer community, we belong to the open source community. We tend to be, I think more than the average human being, we tend to be a nicer group of people. I don't know if that's true, but it just seems that way. When recruiting a team, I invite people over to the table. That's how, this is going to sound horrible if our team's listening and they're not all that way. But I always look for people who are underappreciated in all aspects of life. And it makes for such a fantastic team because those type of people tend to be more appreciative, they think more about others. I love our band of misfits that we call Infinite Red. And we've got a variety of different misfits and I highly recommend finding people who don't naturally walk up to the tire swing. CHRIS: I'm interested too, with that philosophy of the band of misfits: How does building this greater Infinite Red Community impact the internal culture of the team? JAMON: I think internally people didn't totally get why we were doing it because it did seem like a lot of time that we had to spend doing it. We had to be out there answering questions and fielding requests for help and things like that. And we're still kind of figuring out what our role is with that; I think we've gotten a little better at that. Also the community is starting to become more self-sustaining, where there are people who are answering questions who are not Infinite Red people. But we've also made some really good friends there. And I think that the Infinite Red team has benefited from the community in that way. We don't get full participation from everybody. We get some people, you know, Kevin, Steve and some others who are a lot more active in the Infinite Red community Slack especially. And that's okay. We're not expecting everybody to be kind of the social butterflies, but we do get a lot of value from that. I think people see that. And they also see, I think Chain React probably had a bigger impact than the Slack community in a lot of ways. Almost everybody was there and they got a chance to see how we are regarded in the community and how they're sort of looked up to as Infinite Red employees. They're a great team so I think they should be. CHRIS: What do people or even companies get wrong with building communities? JAMON: I know that one thing that definitely comes in is neglect. Communities will die if you don't continually spend time making sure that you're paying attention to them, making sure that you're keeping the core principles alive. Things like that. So neglect is a really big one and you are sort of signing up for an obligation at that point. You need to make sure that you adequately pay attention to what's going on. Now, I have other communities that I've started and still maintain outside of Infinite Red for personal interests and things like that. One has 4,000 members. It's kind of an interesting one. And that community, we started it, grew very quickly and then it sort of became more self-sustaining in a way, which lends itself to maybe taking it for granted that it will continue to just kind of keep rolling right along. But luckily I was able to get together a really great group of core moderators that all have very similar goals, although very very different backgrounds. And that was really great way to handle that because they all, at different times, have time to make sure that the community is going strong. So neglect is very much a big one. Make sure that you don't neglect the community. TODD: I haven't done as much as Jamon, for sure, but it seems a very challenging endeavor. So if I'm a listener and I want to create a community. I'm going to run into lots of problems, I imagine. What are similar kinds of problems you've run into Jamon? Were you able to solve them? Are they still problems? That sort of thing. JAMON: In some communities, and actually in many communities, there's like dynamic that happens where people will try to find the edges. They will try to find what the moderators will allow and what they won't. Often what they do is not explicitly against the rules. Like if it is, it's easy. You just delete the comment, you let him know, whatever. Often what they're doing can be kind of sort of defended as being within the rules, but is still a toxic behavior, when it comes down to it. It will turn into something that's much worse. And usually moderators are under moderating. That's usually the way that people deal with it. They under moderate. You know you don't want to stifle people, you don't want to get calls of censorship and things like that, but really you should probably moderate more than you are and it's a really key aspect of maintaining a community. I've found that that's definitely the case. Early on in this other community, there was someone who was sort of misbehaving and I posted a very strong response to them and told them if they did it again that they were going to be banned. And it was helpful because it kind of set the boundary. This is what we're not going to, we're not going to allow this. It has been good because from that point on the group sort of started self-policing in a way. They kind of understood where the boundaries were. KEN: This topic of boundaries is super important. Another place that shows up particularly with anything open source or any other kind of content that you're maintaining, is an incredible sense of entitlement that you'll run into. And the burnout that can create in your team or the people who are working on that software with you. People will be like, you know, "This sucks." Like, "Why haven't you fixed my bug?" Like, "I submitted it months ago. You people are amateurs." Kind of like, "This is free. You paid us nothing for this." Keeping a healthy boundary about that and figuring out how to be responsive to the community without being a pushover is really important, if you're going to have a long-term software project or any other kind of thing that falls in that category of kind of collaborative content. JAMON: Yes. I agree with that a hundred percent. CHRIS: What are some other characteristics of a thriving community? So you've talked a little bit about moderation. You've talked about boundaries and policing, entitlement. And so, what else is there? KEN: One thing that isn't probably obvious if you've never done it, is how much promotion it actually requires. And you want to do it in a way that's consistent with the rest of your values but you have to put the word out and it's not going to happen on its own. That was definitely a sort of a stumbling block I had around open source, in particular or blogs or any of these things. Like, you have to tell people. It can feel really uncomfortable to a lot of kind of maker types. It feels weird that you have to convince people to let you give them stuff for free. But you totally do. You absolutely do. It's really important and finding the right, "Here it comes. Here comes." You got to find the right balance. (laughter) Finding the right balance is really hard. I think we're getting pretty good at it, but it's a non-optional part of this kind of work. JAMON: Well, because it's not really free, right? Because you only have so much room in your Slack sidebar for another Slack team. You only have so much mind share available for various things. And also people have been bitten in the past, where they've join communities that have either died, have been toxic or are just so noisy that you can't keep up. It just sucks all your time. KEN: Yeah, well, any of these things. Whether it's you're trying a new library. It requires some time and effort on your part. And you have to know that you're not going to get sucked into it. I mean there's probably this question in the back of a lot of people's minds kind of like, "Why on Earth do you do all of this? If it has all of these challenges and nobody pays you for it, like, why is it worthwhile?" Todd, you want to answer that? TODD: No, I want to say a bad joke. KEN: Okay. Go ahead and say a bad joke. TODD: I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Hoover Corporation is actually working on a vacuum cleaner that sucked time, never mind, I did that wrong. (laughter) KEN: You're right. That is a bad joke. TODD: I gave the punchline in the joke. KEN: You're right. That's a terrible joke. TODD: The project team was ... Eventually, they gave up on the project because it was too much of a time suck. I just messed that up. (laughter) KEN: I think we have to keep that in. TODD: Let me do it again. I don't know if you guys know this, but the Hoover Corporation was working on a temporal vacuum cleaner, but they eventually gave up on the project because it was too much of a time suck. CHRIS: I think I liked the failed joke attempt better. KEN: I like the failed joke better. Yeah. TODD: Well, yeah. Because that makes me the joke. KEN: I mean okay, so let's address the elephant in the room. Is there promotional value for us in terms of the rest of our services? Absolutely. Almost any attention especially if you know, basically positive attention is going to be good for us. It's a really expensive way of getting that attention. JAMON: It is. KEN: Let me be clear about that. If that's the only reason you're going to do it, go buy Google ads. Seriously. Like, don't do it. If it didn't have any promotional value, I don't think as a business person, you know, me, as the person who looks at the finances that I could justify the amount that we spend on it. If that was our only goal with that. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: So we have to do it partly because it's just who we are. JAMON: Absolutely. It gives us an audience and it gives us the ability to ... Like I did when I promoted this podcast there. If you join the community, by the way, I'm going to insert one of these seamless advertisements. If you join the community at community.infinite.red, your get access to things before the public does. We actually will go in there and and announce things and say, "Hey, you know, come check this out." And we get early feedback and stuff that way. It's really cool, but it also gives us an audience. So we had you know 2,000 people that I could "@channel." (laughter) And yes, I did it and we put enough money and time into the community that I didn't feel bad about doing it once in awhile, once in a blue moon. And I said, "@channel you know, we have a new podcast and go check it out." So that's definitely the promotional value, the built-in audience that we have that we've already built a rapport with because we have put in the time to actually show them who we are and they buy into that already. There's a lot of value there. KEN: It's a great source of folks that we already know or are sort of somewhat aligned with our values to go and find freelancers and that sort of thing. So we'll frequently get people just emailing us saying, "Hey, can we work with you?" And we usually don't have openings. So it was like, "Hey, you know, we don't have openings right now, but if you go hang out here that's usually where we go first." JAMON: Yes. KEN: We've gotten a lot of great contributors that way. JAMON: We have. KEN: Hopefully that's win-win for everybody. CHRIS: I'm still a little curious about this idea of, should every company build a community around their products, employees, and way of thinking? KEN: Not necessarily. JAMON: Wouldn't you say that one would kind of arise naturally though? KEN: Maybe. There's probably something to be said that, if you don't intentionally create the community, you're going to get a community whether you like it or not and it may or may not be aligned with what you're trying to do. But there's so many different kinds of companies out there that some of them are going to make more sense that way, some of them are going to get less sense that way. For us, given how collaborative what we do is, it makes perfect sense but there is plenty of companies that are just like us that don't cultivate that. So it's kind of up to you but this how we did it. This is how it works for us. And I think there's going to be people who resonate with it. CHRIS: Putting on your future facing hat, in what ways would you like to see the Infinite Red Community grow and mature? TODD: Upwards. (laughter) Oh, you didn't say direction, you said ways. Sorry. JAMON: I think from my standpoint, I'd like to see a little more deeper interaction beyond the more active channels. Something that's a little more beyond that. We have some ideas. We're not ready to announce anything yet but if you go to the community, you'll get first access. (laughter) I'm just relentless, aren't I? (laughter) But the deeper interactions, the more value, the better connection between everybody. I think that there's going to be more of that coming. We are going to continue to invest in the community in a way that is very meaningful. Keep an eye out for that. It's already pretty awesome, but we have some ways to make the directions deeper. I'm not looking for numbers. Like we have 2,000, I think almost 2,100 people in there right now. I'm not necessarily just looking for 100,000 people. What I want is for those connections to be more meaningful. TODD: It's not just our Slack community. I would consider our React Native Newsletter, which we have about 10,000 subscribers to be part of our community, the people who interact with us on open source. We have a variety of open source projects to be part of our community and of course, the listeners to this podcast is also part of our growing community. Community is a big umbrella, I think. JAMON: There are some things that we still need to work on with the community, for sure, but I think we do this probably better than a lot of people, a lot of companies. TODD: Ken's absolutely right. If you're doing community for promotion, good on you. Probably not the highest ROI. It's like general branding. You can't put a number on it but I think clearly from a business standpoint, it has its values and ways that we can't quantify or articulate. It's not for everyone. I think every company should find things that they can do to help the world and their business, but for us, it dovetails well with our culture.

Show Links The Day They Invented Offices Episode Transcript TODD WERTH: Hi, I'm Todd Werth, the CEO and one of the founders of Infinite Red, and I'm located in a very sunny Las Vegas, Nevada. KEN MILLER: I'm Ken Miller, I'm CTO of Infinite Red, and I am based in the east bay, the bay area. JAMON HOLMGREN: I'm Jamon Holmgren, and I am just north of Portland, Oregon in Washington state in Vancouver, Washington, and I am the Chief Operating Officer here at Infinite Red. CHRIS MARTIN: Excellent, so let's start with just defining from each of your perspectives what remote work is. JAMON: For me, a lot of people think remote work is like working in your spare bedroom, or something like that. Which it often is, it can be. But remote work is really more about the ability to be able to do your work at full capacity kind of in a place other than one centralized office. A lot of companies are built around having an office in an office building. I had a company like that before, where everybody is in physical proximity. But remote work is about being elsewhere, and distributed. TODD: Remote work is not, as Jamon said, working from home. Although, I work from my studio here in my house in Las Vegas. Really remote work is working on whatever you're particularly working on at this time in the most efficient place that is efficient for you. For example, some of our team members work in co-location places, because they enjoy being around other people. They work maybe in coffee shop, or that kind of stuff. Personally, I need pretty quiet environment. KEN: I would actually shift the rhetorical frame around this slightly, and say that for us, work needs to happen someplace where you have the resources you need. And what we're calling remote work is just an acknowledgement that for certain kinds of work, a growing segment that I would say is kind of centered around the tech industry, where being next to the people you're working with physically just doesn't matter. Not that it can't be helpful, but that it's no longer required. To the point that we have started referring to non-remote work as commute work. JAMON: Yeah, I love that term. KEN: Meaning instead of saying well there's this normal kind of work where you drive into an office, which we've come to accept as normal. And recognizing that that's actually a phenomenon that's less than 100 years old. It's saying that like there is this thing that developed when you have a car, and before that, the train, where you could live some place that's relatively far away from where you work. Move yourself physically into that office during the day, and then move yourself physically back. And we're saying let's move the office out to where the people are, instead of moving the people to where the office is. That's really the core for me, right? That it's more to do with do you have the resources you need? Meaning do you have a good internet connection, do you have someplace quiet to work that is conducive to the way that you think? And less about where your body is. JAMON: Ken's exactly right. And what we found is that people sort of gravitate to where they work best. One of the things that's a little challenging is this perception that people just kind of slack off, and things like that. But really, people want to work efficiently. They want to find a place where they feel comfortable, like Todd said before, it's quiet. It's not a lot of interruptions. CHRIS:So when Infinite Red started out, was it a remote company to a certain degree? TODD: Yes. JAMON: No. TODD: Yes. KEN: It depends on where you start counting. It depends on which of us you're asking- TODD: Yeah, because- KEN: Because we were two companies before we started. TODD: Yes, there was Jamon's company, which he ran for 10 years. They were not remote. Infinite Red, the previous Infinite Red before the merge, and we became the new Infinite Red, we started out as 100% remote company on purpose, and our intention was to remain that way for the life of the company. JAMON: Yeah, and it was kind of an interesting transition for us. Because we were not remote for sure, and we were all working in an office here in Vancouver, Washington. It was right about the time that I met Todd, and I don't remember exactly to be honest, whether it was influence from Infinite Red that kind of moved us toward remote, or whether we were ... I know that I had some employees asking about it already, so that was certainly a factor. But the other Infinite Red, the original Infinite Red being a model was really helpful to us, for ClearSight, because Todd and I shared a lot of information, and he would tell me about things that he was passionate about, and one of them was obviously remote work. And we were able to start transitioning that way, and by the time the merger happened, we were pretty much all remote, except for me. Because I was building a home, and living with my in-laws. So I didn't really have a great spot to work, so I ended up staying in the office for another year. TODD: Yep. Ken and I originally discussed, I've worked throughout my 20 years of being a software engineer, I've worked in the office full-time. I've worked partially remote, and I've worked 100% remote. I personally feel that in the office full-time, or 100% remote are the two superior options. I don't like the hybrid view for many reasons. So we were very specifically going to be 100% not 99, not 98%, but 100% remote for everyone for all time. KEN: I feel like I should mention something ironic, which actually proves the point a little bit, which is that as we speak, I am in the same room as Todd, which is in his house, and we are here because it's my daughter's spring break, and we just decided to come and visit. But as far as the team is concerned, there's zero difference. They don't care, it doesn't matter, the only hassle is that we had to set up fancy microphones set up in order to make this work. Right? Which kind of proves the point, right? Which is that when everybody's in their own room, there's actually a lot of things are much simpler. Yes. We don't discount the benefits that can come from being in the same room sometimes, it's just we don't value it so highly that we're willing to sacrifice everything else on that altar, which is what tends to end up happening in commute-oriented companies. JAMON: Ken wrote a really great article on our blog, The Day They Invented Offices. It's a hypothetical conversation between a real estate developer, and a knowledge worker, like an engineer. KEN: It's satire. JAMON: And it talks about a world where basically if offices were not invented, people worked remotely by default. But the real estate developer's trying to convince the knowledge worker that they need to change to a commute company. And all of the benefits that that would entail, and all of the costs as well. TODD: Yeah, it's interesting, because when you do that thought experiment, you realize how ridiculous it would be to go from default remote working situation into a commute working situation, because you'd have to build trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure to make it work. So it was fascinating. I do want to say one thing, Ken mentioned that he was sitting in my office, which he is. I feel him breathing down my neck at the moment. Even if, and we actually have a physical office in Vancouver, Washington, which is in the Portland area. Very few people go there. KEN: It's a mailbox with a couple chairs attached. TODD: But sometimes people will go there and work, and anyone on the team is welcome to do that. Or Ken is in a situation. But we have a basic rule where even if you're physically next to someone, we still work the same way. Meaning we don't have a meeting where Ken and I are talking to each other in person, and everyone ... All the remote people are second class citizens where they're not seeing our conversation. We're looking at each other, and we're making body motion, that kind of stuff. So we still work as if we're remote, even if we're physically in the same location. CHRIS: That's really interesting too, I mean what kind of discipline goes into keeping things where everyone can be a part of it, not just defaulting to that person to person conversation when you're in the same room? TODD: I'm in charge of discipline. We tried writing things on the chalkboard many times, it did not work. Detention seemed a little juvenile. So we went to the old classic of cat of nine tails. KEN: Keelhauling. JAMON: Yes. KEN: Yeah. As an escalation. TODD: To answer your question seriously, which I have difficulty doing, there are a lot of difficulties. Fundamentally, they come from the fact that a lot of people have not only never experienced remote work, have never seen it. We're too many generations removed from the 1800's, when almost everyone worked at their house, basically, and their house was downtown. Your parents didn't work that way, your grandparents didn't work ... they've never seen it in existence. So they really don't know how it works. Not only they don't know how it works, their family definitely doesn't know how it works. And probably the number one problem we have is family, and friends, local family and friends not respecting that the person's actually working. One of the tricks I tell people, and it works pretty well, is just tell your family member that your boss is getting mad at you, or your boss wants you to do something. Because even if you're remote, everyone understands the boss. And just throw me under the bus, it's totally fine, and that seems to work. But that's part of the biggest challenge, is family not respecting your space. JAMON: I think Todd touched on something really important, and that's that this is actually not that new. That was the default way to work. People didn't commute to work. They worked on a farm. KEN: Maybe they walked down the street, but in most cases, not. JAMON: This idea that we have gigantic super highways, and huge transit systems and stuff, just to move people from one location that they could work to another location that they could work for no apparent other reason, it's a little bit mind boggling. Now I understand, I understand why it came to be. Remote tools, which we're not going to talk about much in this episode, but remote tools have not historically been that great, and the experience has been pretty bad. But that's changing, it very much is changing. TODD: The industrial revolution when people started working at factories, and started commuting, and the transportation revolution that facilitated a lot of that. Most of human history, work was not separated from life. Their work life didn't make sense, because you're either relaxing and drinking lemonade, or you're making dinner, or you're sweeping your house, or you're pulling out the potatoes in your backyard, if you're a farmer. The reason we have work life balance now, is because work can be fairly distressing, and you need a break from it. But typically back then, let's say you're a blacksmith, your shop would be on main street, and your house would be behind your shop, or above your shop. So your children would live within feet of where you worked, and where your spouse worked. Whether your spouse worked in the home, or did other things. So your children would eat all your meals with you, they would go to school, school is probably pretty close if they were older. If they were younger, they would eat your meals with you. They'd be around your work, they would see work going on all the time. It just wouldn't be work, it would just be normal, for instance, if you're done with your particular task today, and there's a customer coming in who wants something built for their wagon at two, you might hang out with your children, do some housework, or just play games, or whatever. And then when your customer comes in, you go into the shop, and you service that customer. The industrial revolution made it where adults had to start to pretend to work so they didn't get in trouble. JAMON: So my six year old daughter had an assignment at school, and one of the questions was where does your parent or guardian go to work? And she wrote, "The gym." Because to her, that's when I left the house, was to go work out at the gym. TODD: That's so awesome. KEN: The phenomenon that you're talking about Todd, where the industrial revolution began this process where people started working out of the home, there was a really good reason for that, which is that it was the beginning of humans having to collaborate in a large scale way on bigger problems than they had had in the past, right? Before that, the only place where you would see really large scale collaboration like that would have been I suppose- JAMON: Warfare? KEN: What? JAMON: Warfare? KEN: Warfare, yeah. That's the place where people would leave the house, and collaborate in large numbers, that was really it. JAMON: Yeah. KEN: Maybe large farms, I don't know, you could kind of consider that. But culminating in the 20th century, where that was the norm for people to go and collaborate in relatively large numbers some place away from their home. It enabled them to solve problems that you couldn't solve without involving that many people. And of course, we don't want to give that up, and so that's what the modern remote telecommuting company does, is it creates this new kind of collaboration layer, and we've been very deliberate about how we construct that. And I think that's one of the places where companies that kind of dabble with remote tend to fall down, which is that they have all these inherited ways of collaborating that you do when you're in an office together, and some of them don't work anymore. You can't just tap your coworker on the shoulder, you can't just go and like sit next to their screen. You can't all pile into an office on an impromptu basis. So you have to reconstruct habits, technologies, whatever, that can replace those things, and augment them. And we think that, overall, you end up with a better result having gone through that effort of being deliberate about that. And that in a generation, no one will think about these things anymore, because they will simply be the inherited defaults that people who work in an office together enjoy today. And we sometimes meet in person, right? Once a year we get the whole team together, the executive team comes together more often than that. It's not that we don't value that, but we think of it is as a luxury. TODD: Well, it's not necessarily a luxury perhaps, it's important socialization. So Ken and I actually discussed, we went over a pros and cons, like what's good about working in an office? Or in a cubicle, or in hell? What's good about that? Well, you're around other people, and every answer we came up with that was good was all social. It had nothing to do with actually producing any kind of work product. And I basically tell people I commute to socialize, as opposed to commuting to work. So instead of commuting to work five days a week, and socializing one of those days in the office at an office party or something, I work remotely, and I commute to the office party once a week. Not our office, but just local friends, and that kind of stuff. JAMON: It's kind of a funny thing, but yeah, you want to hang out with your friends, not necessarily just with your coworkers. And that may sound kind of weird, and the environment we are now, where often you do make friends with coworkers, and that's all great. But your social life can be something that is a little more deliberate outside of work. KEN: It's not like we discount the social value of people working together in an office, like I enjoyed that when I did it. But I think you're seeing with the rise of WeWork, and similar places, like just in the last five years I've seen the number of co-working facilities explode. And I think that that's part of the same trend, which is that you can have that experience without having to drive for an hour each way, every day. TODD: Yeah. One of our team members, Darin Wilson, he works every day out of a co-location place, and he walks for 10 minutes to the co-location area. That for him is the most efficient, he enjoys that, and that works out well. It's a great example of what works for one person doesn't work for others. I would not like that personally. I also don't like listening to music when I work, other people do. When you remote work, if you like to listen to death metal at extremely high volumes, well have at it. It's great, it's wonderful. KEN: Just turn it off before you get on Zoom please. TODD: Yes. So one of the things I think we shouldn't overlook is some of the great benefits of working say in a cubicle. I would probably estimate 99% of all the funny videos, cool things you find on the internet, were created by extremely bored people sitting in a gray cube. I call them employee fattening pins. So the zombies will appreciate this lifestyle. Not that I dislike commute working, I hope I haven't given off that vibe. JAMON: Not at all. CHRIS: How does remote work make a more engaged worker? JAMON: You know, you have to work at it. There isn't just this appearance of working, right? The only thing that really surfaces is what you actually do, not what it looks like you're doing in your cubicle, right? And because of that, the only way to tell that you are working is to actually work. TODD: Well to actually produce work product, to be more specific. KEN: Yes. JAMON: Actually produce work product, exactly. And we go to great lengths to try to not tie work specifically to time. Because while an eight hour work day is pretty normal, and generally okay, if there are ways to accomplish your work more efficiently, you should be rewarded for that, and not penalized for that by having to sit in your seat for another two hours. It's more about stripping away the appearance of work, and turning to the actual product. TODD: One of our team members moved from Reno, Nevada, to San Diego, California. She moved over a weekend, Friday she worked, and Monday she worked. From the team's perspective, absolutely nothing had changed. Although, she moved I don't know how many miles that is. Hundreds, tens of miles. So that kind of stuff is uber cool. One of our new team members said, "I'm going to New York for a week, can I still work?" And I said, "I assume you can still work in New York. I haven't been there in a few years, but I imagine they still allow that." Turns out they do. Strangely. So I'll tell you a personal story of mine. After I eat at lunch, I don't know if it's my digestive system, or whatever, it sucks the energy out of me so bad. When I worked in a smaller place where people trusted me, I would just kind of take a little nap in my chair. When I worked for bigger companies where such things were frowned upon, I would sit there for two hours from say 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock, trying my best to keep my eyes open pretending to work, and sort of reading Facebook. It's just stupid, and I did that when I was 34 years old. It's just stupid to have adults behave in this way, it really is. JAMON: Yeah, we don't look at that as some sort of a weakness. TODD: Nowadays, I did made a little bit of fun, that's fine. I really enjoy the siesta. I'll go take literally an hour nap after I eat, and then I come back refreshed, and I get lots of work done. And I tell people, I'm going to take siesta, there's no shame in that whatsoever. JAMON: And I think that's important, when the CEO's doing it, it kind of gives people permission to work in the way that is most efficient for them. TODD: Exactly. I personally believe it's super important to have 100% of people remote. The CEO on down. A lot of companies out there that claim to be remote, they're partially remote, and that's fine. I'm glad it works for them. But when you're CEO, and your other executive team have to use all the same tools, remote tools and everything that everyone does, it's not fair, but it's true. Those tools get a lot better. It's true. So if you have the CO sitting in an office, and they don't have to experience the horribleness that is a poly comm conference call, then it's never going to improve. CHRIS: What are some of the common misconceptions of remote work that you often have to explain, or even defend? TODD: Oh, there's lots. One, you're not really working. That's the biggest thing. Two is that you're probably doing your laundry, playing video games, and other such things that people imagine. Those are the kinds of- KEN: Sometimes you are, I'll get to that. TODD: Well sure, sometimes you are and that's fine. But the biggest one if you're at home, people can bother you. Like my mother, which I love very much, she's funny. She comes to visit, and I've worked remote off and on for a long time, so she should understand this by now. But she'll be like, she'll come in and talk to me. And she'll say, "Oh I know you're working," and I have a separate office, so it's very apparent that you're walking into my office. And she goes, "I know you're working so that's fine. Finish your work up, and then we'll talk in an hour or so." And I'm like, "Mom, remember," my mom's retired. I go, "Remember when you worked? You had to go there for eight hours? It was like from 9 AM to 5 PM? It's the same for me, it's not exactly the hours, but it's not like one hour." And so bless her heart, she's going to give me an hour to get my work done, and then we can talk about whatever she wants to talk about. KEN: I think one of the misconceptions that's not a misconception is that it can tend to blur your work time and your personal time. Then one of the things that people say that they like about having a commute and an office to go is that their work time is over there, and their personal time is over here. And I wish I could say that that's not an issue with remote work. It is kind of an issue for the reasons that Todd mentions. Right, it takes a certain amount of discipline to set that boundary. I'm going to make the case that that's not a problem. It is a problem if you hate your work. If you need to like recover from the boiler room that is your work, or the boredom room, or whatever it is that makes your work uncomfortable. That is a problem. I think of this as a feature of remote work, and it echoes what Todd said about it needing to be the CEO on down. Because if it is the CEO on down, the CEO is going to have the same problems that you are. Right? The three of us have the same pressure about when does work begin and end? Are we kind of always working, are we never working? What is that boundary? And it forces the company to either become a good enough place to work that people want to work, and they're not bothered by the fact that it kind of mixes in with their personal life, or die. Like as the evolutionary pressure on the remote work niche, is that you have to be good communicators. You have to be respectful, and you have more ways that you can be respectful, because you're not having to share as much space with people. You don't have fights over what people put in the damn refrigerator. You don't have fights over who's playing what music, and who put up what offensive poster, or all of these things that come when you're forced into this little box together. TODD: The one I really miss is when someone leaves the company, and everyone kind of looks at each other and says, "Is two minutes too soon to go raid everything out of their office?" KEN: Yeah. TODD: And you see these 50 year old people scrambling around like the hunger games, trying to get the better stapler. KEN: The chair, it's always the chairs and monitors. Those are the real prizes. TODD: Yes, and I've worked for places, like I like a very nice monitor. And I always bring my own, because companies never provide that, typically. I've been told, "Oh, we can't have that because if you have a big monitor, other people will be jealous, and so you can't have that." And I'm like, "Well, okay, I'm going to have it. So either this conversation's escalating, or you have a wonderful lunch." JAMON: I think that's something really insightful about this that we'll probably touch on a lot in our podcast, but that is that we're purposely putting these constraints on ourselves that require that we become a better company. That we become a better, we continue to work on culture. We don't have the easy outs that many companies do. And people will look at that and say, "Well, but you can't do that easy out thing that we all do." And we say, "Exactly, we have to do it differently, we have to do it better. We have to work on it." Remote tools are terrible, exactly. We have to go find better remote tools, we have to work on that. Those constraints are good. They're very good. They're healthy. There's something that forces us to continue to innovate, and to self reflect, and look at how we work. I mean the blurring of the lines between personal and work as Ken said, I totally agree. It's about loving your work. And it brings up some positives too, I mean I just spent two weeks in California. We're not at the stage right now where I necessarily want to take two weeks completely offline. I still want to be somewhat available for Todd and Ken. But I was able to be on Slack on my phone at various times. Let's say waiting in line at Disneyland, or something like that. And that may sound terrible to some people, but it wasn't a big deal to me. It was totally fine, and I loved that I could actually take two weeks for my family to be away, and enjoying the sun, which we don't get a lot of here. KEN: In a way, it also makes your vacations more enjoyable, if you know that you're not coming back to two weeks of email. JAMON: Exactly. KEN: Or things that have fallen apart, or who knows, right, where ... yeah. TODD: I love that spin, that's fantastic. JAMON: I don't see it as spin- KEN: Not for me, anyway. I think some people might not feel that way. JAMON: I understand that. KEN: Yeah. JAMON: A lot of people don't, and I am speaking personally here. This is not for everybody, some people totally on the uninstall Slack when they go on vacation, that's fine. For me though, I was on the plane, and I was basically archiving a bunch of emails, and I get into work this morning, and I could hit the ground running, and I'm good to go. What is the real cost of totally disconnecting? The real cost would have been I couldn't take two weeks. I couldn't be away that long. That's what it would have been. I was able to benefit from that, you may only see the downsides, but there's positives there. KEN: And to be clear, this is how it is for us as founders. Right? When it comes to our employees, we pretty much encourage them to mute, or uninstall Slack while they're away. JAMON: That's right, that's right. KEN: They don't have as much need to be sort of always on that we do. Yeah, but for us, it's actually ... I mean from my point of view, it's a benefit. JAMON: But even that, we have some employees that want to travel, and they want to be gone for a couple months. Three months, even. Taking a three month vacation, that's pretty tough, that's pretty tough to do. So with some of them, they may work in the early mornings, or they may work in the late evenings to coincide with their time zone, and then they can be out on a trip for three months. So they are able to continue to be productive during that time. KEN: And that's a perk that Google cannot match, period. That is just something that you cannot do if you work for Google. TODD: Yeah, screw you Google. KEN: Or whomever, right? Any of these companies that expect a physical presence. TODD: We're coming for you, Google. KEN: The point is, so we have one person who doesn't have a permanent home. Right? He moves around pursuing his hobbies, and makes it work. We have other employees who have done exactly what Jamon has said, and they've gone on extended workcations, right? Where they're able to get their work done, and they have the experience of frankly, actually living in another country, as opposed to just being a tourist. And we have high standards for how they get their work done while they're doing that, but because we've had to develop standards that really measure people's impact rather than their face time, it works. TODD: Copyright Apple. KEN: There was a space, you couldn't really hear it when I said it- TODD: Space? JAMON: Face. TODD: Face. KEN: So there was a face, space time. Yeah, right, anyway. TODD: Yeah, we talked about people who want to take longer physical trips around, whether it's around the US, around the world, what not, the benefits. But there's a benefit for another set of people, and I would probably consider myself in that group, as well as some of our other team members, and that's people who choose to live rurally. JAMON: Yes. TODD: We have one person who lives really rurally, and he has a lot of land and stuff, and he can have the lifestyle that he enjoys, and still have a very productive and successful career. Myself, I do live in Las Vegas, but I live in rural Las Vegas. I have a little bit of land. It allows me to live in this way, when I used to have to live in San Francisco, which I enjoyed for a long time, but as I got older I wanted to go back to living on the land and stuff. So for people who want to live rurally, or not just the typical urban or suburban lifestyle, it's fantastic. CHRIS: So when it comes to the client experience of working with a 100% remote company, how do they respond to this way of work? TODD: That's a great question, Chris. Various ways depending on the client. Some clients, that's the way they work, and they love it. Like they see us kindred spirits, that's the way they like to work. Other clients especially if maybe they're more enterprise city type clients and stuff, maybe aren't as familiar with it. We kind of insist on it to be honest, even if the client's local to some or many of our employees, our team. And we just explain it, and we are very articulate in the way we describe how we work. And sometimes they have to have a little faith in us, but after they work through our process, they probably never seen a remote company that works well. I think our company works as well as I've seen. We work with a few companies who are both I think do a good job like we do. A lot of them do not, and I'm very proud to say that quite a few customers who maybe have part-time remote work started opting our procedures, which is a fantastic compliment, and it makes me proud. Because we do spend a huge amount of time thinking about this stuff, and working on it. JAMON: That's actually more common than you think, that we influence our clients in the way that they work. TODD: Can you expand on that Jamon? JAMON: When clients come in, and they experience the Infinite Red way of working, and they see the thought and care that we put into it, and how we're all kind of bought into it, and how we also iterate on it, because it's an ongoing process. We don't have it perfect yet, we're continuing to work on it. They see that things get done, that it can be done well, and that they have the flexibility that remote work affords. It's a pretty neat thing to see them working the way that we love to work. TODD: I don't want to digress, but we use Slack quite a bit for chat communication, that sort of thing. We use email next to nothing. But we have a channel we call rollcall, and the channel is very simple. It's just kind of describe where you are, and if you're working or not. It's analogous to walking in the office and saying, "Good morning everyone, gosh my back hurts, I've been at the gym." And it works really, really well, because it's not forced on people, and people really enjoy the back and forth. So let me just go through this morning's rollcall. One of our team members signed on at 3 AM, and then she went out for breakfast at 6 o'clock. Other people started signing in, one person signed in. It said they laptop issues that they fixed, they explained why. People gave some reactions. Other people just signed in, I said, "Good morning." One person said, "Short break," this is at 9 AM, "Picking up the car from the mechanic." We won't have exactly specific times people have to be working, or available, we want people to be so many hours a day where they can coordinate with other people, have meetings, have work sessions, that kind of stuff. But it's not uncommon people say, "My daughter's having a recital, I'm going to leave after lunch, I'll be back and probably work some this evening." No client meetings, no one's being impacted by that, great, we all give him thumbs up, we say, "Hope it goes well." No one asked if they can do that, no one says, "Hey Todd, can I go to that?" And then around lunchtime, everyone says they're lunching. They might talk about what they ate, some sort of friendly conversation, and you just kind of get a feeling of your team going about their day. And I will finish this long story up by saying it's kind of fascinating. So one of the people I work a lot with is Gant Laborde, who lives in New Orleans. And we work a lot during the day. And when he comes and visits me physically, or I go to New Orleans and visit him, it doesn't feel like I'm visiting a friend I haven't seen in a while. There isn't a lot of chat about how things have been going, it's nice to see you again. Because I've seen him every day for hours, and I just saw him this morning. And by see him, I mean interacted with him either in a video call, or on Slack, or whatever. It doesn't feel like I'm just finally meeting him, it's like we're just continuing what we were doing this morning, it's just we happen to physically be in the same space. It's very interesting phenomena. JAMON: I find it kind of flabbergasting in a way that companies would care about someone taking a break, or going to pickup their daughter, or having to go pickup the car from the mechanic. TODD: Lazy leadership. JAMON: That's exactly right. TODD: I recommend if you're a lazy ... for the lazy leaders out there, or the bad leaders, yeah, don't do remote work. Stick with cubicles, make the cubicles as comfortable as possible to get the worst employees so the rest come to us. KEN: It's probably worth talking about people for whom it wouldn't be a good fit. Obviously there's still plenty of jobs out there where physical presence is implicitly required. Anybody who works in retail, anybody who works with their hands, has to actually physically manipulate things. I think our point has always been that there's just not as many of those as people think. And to be honest, I suspect that over the next 20, 30 years, as robotics and telepresence, and that sort of thing start to really come into their own, that even those sorts of jobs will start to diminish. You already have that even with like medical, the medical field, legal field, things that used to be sort of a high, high physical presence will become more low physical presence. TODD: Surgeons right now are doing surgery with a DaVinci system, both physically, and I think they can do it remotely now. Like they're standing next to it typically, but I think they can do it remotely at the moment. JAMON: What's kind of funny about that is my dad owned an excavation company, and he was one of the first people to get a cell phone, because for him, everything was remote. Like he had to be remote, because he was driving his dump truck to the job site, he had to be there working, and he had to do his office work, because he was like the only guy. He didn't have an office, he didn't have someone handling the paperwork, he had to create invoices on the fly and stuff. So in some ways, some of those blue collar jobs had some of these things figured out way before we did. TODD: That's actually a super interesting point. Logistic companies, or shipping, truck drivers and stuff. They've had to deal with this, I don't know how old you all are out there in listening land, but if you remember Nextel phones, with the automatic walkie talkie feature- JAMON: Totally. TODD: They're useful, very useful. Kind of like an analog Slack, really. So yeah, it's fascinating. A lot of the so called blue collar work has had to deal with this for a very long time. KEN: And it's worth mentioning that even for the core of jobs that will always be physical in person, if you took every office out there that didn't need to be an office, and you converted that to a remote job where people can live anywhere, the reduction in pressure on the real estate market, on the transportation system that would ensue, would make life better for everybody. TODD: Right. KEN: Right? The people who have to commute can commute, because I mean you have this phenomenon as cities grow, where they'll build a new highway, and for five, 10 years if you're lucky, things are great. Because there's all this extra capacity, but what happens in the meantime, is that further down that highway, developers start cramming new houses in, because suddenly it's a doable commute. And then within that five, 10, maybe 20 years, it's back to the way it was, maybe worse than it was, because now there's even more people trying to cram into this road. But if you just snap your fingers, and moved all of those offices out so that that knowledge workers, the people who are working with their brains, and with words, and with digital images, and that sort of thing. And they all scatter to the winds, and live where they want to live, and not in Fremont, or wherever it is that they're living to commute to San Francisco. I feel like, right, maybe like I don't think I've ever seen a study like this, but it seems like it would stand to reason at least that the pressure on transportation would reduce to the point that everybody's quality of life would improve. I don't know, we'll see I guess. JAMON: Yeah, even when you look at something like a dentist office, which is probably extremely resistant to this sort of thing, there's just the robotics are not there yet. And maybe even if they were the trust isn't there yet, with the general public. But how many other people are in that office that don't need to be drilling on teeth? They could be elsewhere. And you're exactly right, the infrastructure, and it's actually kind of happening in some ways. You look at some of the high rises in downtown Portland and stuff, people are coming and living in the city because they want to live in the city, and not because it's next to their office. And a lot of these offices are now being converted into apartments and condos, and being kind of near offices, where you can work from your house. And what would cities look like if every job that could be remote was remote? KEN: I mean yeah, can you imagine a world where the city center is the bedroom community, right? JAMON: Right. TODD: That would be awesome. KEN: Where people live because they want to be next to the cultural opportunities in the city. And the minority of people who actually have to physically work at some job in the city, can live next to their work, because there's just more housing, because like much less of the city is taken over by the kind of white collar workplaces that have been traditional for city centers. TODD: That's actually really interesting to think about. KEN: Yeah. TODD: I imagine somewhere in hell, there is an eight hour bumper to bumper commute, and you're not in a car, but you're literally in a cubicle with a steering wheel. CHRIS: One of the things that I want to go back and touch on is this idea of leadership, and how remote work isn't for the lazy leader. So let me ask the question of the three of you, how has being 100% remote made you a better leader? JAMON: Well, I can speak to my experience going from ClearSight not being remote to being remote. I'm kind of in some ways a forceful personality. I'm kind of a person who likes to move fast, and bring everybody along with him. And in an office, there's actually a sort of almost like a physical component to that. Like the leader's right there, and he's enthusiastic about something. He's moving fast, and he's doing his thing, and he's talking about it where everybody can hear. When I look back at it now, that was sort of lazy leadership. It was. It wasn't necessarily the type of leadership that was people coming along because they were enthusiastic about it, it was more that they were just kind of following the force of nature that was moving that direction. Now that I'm remote, I don't have those physical cues, verbal cues, things like that, to bring everybody along. And it requires a lot more thought and planning around how to get people on board with concepts, and how to get people moving in the right direction. It's a really interesting thing, and it's not something I've totally figured out yet, but it's something I'm moving toward. KEN: I would say that it has forced me to be more explicit about expectations, since you don't have this inherited set of defaults. You have to say, "This is what we expect from you." It's not, "We expect you to come in the office at nine," it's, "You need to be available to clients during an agreed upon window," for example. Or as we had mentioned before, "Here's our productivity benchmark, and this is what we're looking at." You might have to develop some of those in any kind of company, and you should. But our setup, it exposes any fault lines in your expectations, and you have to address them. As Todd said, like if you want to be a lazy leader, don't do it. TODD: I would pile on what Ken said, you have to be able to measure what people, their work output, their work product. That is not easy, even in industries where it's obvious what their work product is. Say they paint paintings, you can see that they painted a painting. That is probably the most challenging thing, and then there's the emotional part. Where if you can't measure their work product, and you can't see them sitting in a seat, you're just going to have to have faith in them, and get over yourself worrying about it. But it is challenging to make sure that you have a semi-accurate view of who's actually being efficient, and who's not. And just not 100% thing. JAMON: That's more on the management side of things. Leadership side of things too is difficult, because getting people to see a vision is much easier when you can just say, "Okay," kind of the Michael Scott thing. "Everybody in the conference room in five minutes." That's a very different thing than what we do. TODD: I think it's challenging, but to be honest, I'm not staying awake at night worrying about those challenges. I find them fairly straightforward, you just have to put effort into it. Keep on walking down that road, and I think it works out really well to be honest. It's not a big deal to me. JAMON: You just have to strike the right balance. TODD: There was a tweet last week where basically it said, "During any meeting, you don't have to listen, just at one point you have to comment and say, 'I think the solution to this problem is just striking the right balance', and then everyone in the meeting nods, and you were involved." KEN: Because it's always true. JAMON: It's always true. TODD: Yes, so that's a running joke here at Infinite Red, where in the meeting at some point someone says, "We just need to strike the right balance." We all laugh. CHRIS: Looking into the future, do you see more and more companies adopting remote work? TODD: It's one of our missions, our side missions as a company, to make it more. It's probably other than software engineering, and software design, which is obviously our main focus of our company. Other than that, probably the number one thing that we're interested in promoting in the world is remote work. So I hope the answer is, it's more I don't know, I'm sure Ken and Jamon have some good insight in what they predict. JAMON: I think that one of the factors that will influence this is I look at my kids, like generation Z. And they don't know what it's like not to be connected, and they don't know what it's like not to be able to just talk to their cousin via FaceTime, no space, and who lives in South Carolina. This is normal to them, this is a normal thing to them, this is a normal way to live and to work. Well, they don't really work, but just to do things. KEN: We'll fix that. JAMON: Obviously for my kids, they're around remote work all the time. But it is a way of life, and I think that you'll also see other things like there are more ways to learn online, versus going to a university and sitting in a classroom. There are plenty of other opportunities for them to get used to this way of doing life. And I think that will have an impact. It may not be moving as quickly as we would like, we would like to see a lot more industries move into being remote work for a variety of reasons. But I think that that is a factor. KEN: I will echo that and say that both my wife and I work from home. And my daughter makes the same face when you say that some people have to like drive to a special place, as when you say that you used to have to come to the TV at a particular time to watch your show. Right? But even before the generational shift, I think it is happening more and more. Ironically, Silicon Valley, which should be at the vanguard of this, is one of the most resistant to the idea. I think that's partly because they've had so much money flowing through, that they've been able to afford the enormous luxury of moving everybody to this expensive place, and then putting them in an expensive office. And to be honest, for a company that is chasing a multi billion dollar idea, and trying to beat their competitors over the next six months, there's a case to be made for doing that. But I think way, way more of those companies think that they are doing that than actually are. JAMON: I actually have a question for you Ken, do you think that this will ... you know you said Silicon Valley is resistant to this, and that's a very location based geo fence there. Do you think that the revolution of remote work will happen irrespective of where people are located, but maybe in a different cohort? A different type of people will bring remote work to the forefront more so than a specific place. Let's say for example Detroit, or something, decided it all of a sudden is all remote. That's probably less likely to happen then- KEN: I think that that's one of the key pieces of this, is like it's like it's creating it's own virtual location. That there's a set of people who don't have the same relationship with place, and that sounds really pretentious kind of. But like they just don't think about physical locations in the same way. The cost aspect of it has caused it to grow in more cost sensitive industries than venture backed startups. And it's not that they don't have those, but I think it's also a certain amount of bias on the part of the venture capitalists themselves, and the kind of people that appeal to them. This is my guess, they will crack eventually. TODD: Having worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years, I do love Silicon Valley, and love San Francisco for sure. But when it comes to remote work, they have an inherent bias against it, because when you endure the heavy cost of relocating to Silicon Valley, and you've got your foot into that door, and you're part of that community, anything that would diminish the rewards from that suffering diminishes you. In other words, it's wonderful being there as an engineer. Everyone you meet is engineers, they're all working on interesting projects. There's a real benefit, I think there's other cities too. Especially some secondary cities like Portland, Oregon, or- KEN: Seattle. TODD: Seattle yeah, and Texas. KEN: Austin. TODD: Thank you. Austin, Texas. I think these are up and coming and stuff. And there's still benefits socially to it, but I think a lot of times they resist it because it diminishes their specialness in many ways. JAMON: Yeah. TODD: And really when we started Infinite Red, and we decided that this will be a remote company forever, and that this is my third and hopefully last company I build, it allowed me to move back to my home state of Nevada without worrying about my career, and that is an incredibly powerful thing.

Who: Chris Roberts and Vincent Ferrari When: Sunday, May 14, 2017 Where is Vinny: The state where you get a free college education unless you’re an illegal North Dakotan. Where is Chris: One stop away from an active crime scene investigation on the Metro. What made the show: The biggest worm panic of the year was+ Read More

Who: Chris Roberts and Vincent Ferrari When: Sunday, May 14, 2017 Where is Vinny: The state where you get a free college education unless you’re an illegal North Dakotan. Where is Chris: One stop away from an active crime scene investigation on the Metro. What made the show: The biggest worm panic of the year was+ Read More

Steve Klabnik @steveklabnik | Blog | GitHub Show Notes: 02:56 - Getting Into Rust 05:51 - Working on Rust for Mozilla 07:01 - Writing Documentation and Preventing Burnout 13:24 - The Rust Programming Language 18:45 - Rewriting Firefox in Rust 21:20 - High-level Functions 25:23 - Typesystem and Concurrency 36:35 - Rust and Web Developers; Digging Into Rust on a Deeper Level 43:46 - The Rust Ecosystem and Using Rust on a Day-to-Day Basis 48:38 - The Rust Book Resources: Rust For Rubyists Cargo Servo Application Binary Interface (ABI) MetaLanguage (ML) Tokio Systems Programming intermezzOS Steve Klabnik: Exploring Ruby Through Rust What's new with “The Rust Programming Language”? rustbook Transcript: CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast episode 51. I'm here, my name is Charles Lowell. I'll be hosting today. With me is Chris Freeman, also of The Frontside and with us is Steve Klabnik. Now, most of you probably heard of Steve before. My first encounter with Steve was actually at the LoneStarRuby Conference back in... Gosh, I don't know. It was many, many years ago and he was giving a talk on Shoes, which I also had never heard of before. It was a wonderful story of a code archaeology project where he was kind of investigating, rehabilitating, and in carrying forward a project that the 'why the lucky stiff' had done. That was a wonderful introduction but it was certainly not the last time that I encountered him in his writings and in talks and stuff, mostly within the Ruby community. But it popped up again and again, talking about Rust APIs and always making a point to take a good knowledge that he'd learned and spread it around. Personally, I've lost track of Steve or hadn't really heard much of what he was doing for a while. But then Chris came into the office and he was always talking about this language called Rust. While I've heard Rust, Chris was just all about it and wanted to have Steve come on the show because it turns out that Steve, you've been really, really, really into Rust these last few years and sounds like concentrating most of your work there. STEVE: That is totally true and accurate. Also to go back a bit, that means that you are in attendance for my very first conference talk ever. CHARLES: Really? STEVE: That was literally the first one. CHARLES: Wow, it was a great start. That was a great story. It was educational and also touching. STEVE: Thank you. It's actually interesting because what happened was is that someone else who works on Shoes have encouraged me to submit to RubyConf and I was like, "Who would want to hear me talk at a conference?" I submitted the talk and RubyConf accepted it and I was really excited. Then a bunch of other conferences noticed and two other conferences had asked me to give a talk before RubyConf happens and LoneStar was one of them and it was the first one chronologically. That moment was also very special to me as well. CHARLES: Fantastic. What year was that? STEVE: I want to say it was like 2012 or 2011. It's really hard for me to pay attention to time and date. My history is so complicated that I often forget. I've literally told people that I'm 10 years old or younger than I am because I would like mess up to date on the things. It just happens. CHARLES: Yeah, but it was a while ago and it's been quite a journey, in between now and then. STEVE: Yeah, definitely and you're also definitely right. It is now literally my day job to work on Rust so it is definitely the focus of most of my efforts. Partly, why I made that happen was because it was the focus of all my hobby efforts before I made my job. It's definitely been a couple of years that I've been a full-time on all the Rust stuff. CHARLES: How was it that you actually got into Rust? How did you hear about it before everybody else and how did it capture your attention? STEVE: I've always liked programming languages and learning different programming languages. Ruby was sort of where I became known professionally. But it wasn't the first language that I knew and I knew it was never going to be the last. As much as I always loved Ruby and I'm like literally have a tattoo on my body so I will be with Ruby forever. I always try to learn new stuff and I find it exciting. I'm from middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania in the suburbs of Pittsburgh on a cattle farm and I was visiting my parents for Christmas one year. There's not really a whole lot to do out of the very small town so I was just reading the internet, as usual and it turns out that that was the day that Rust 0.5 had been released. I saw this release announcement go by and I was like, "I vaguely heard of this programming language once or twice maybe. I don't have anything to do. Let's give it a try." I downloaded and installed it. I looked at their tutorial and the tutorial has a problem that a lot of tutorials had, which is I read it, I said, "This all makes sense," I tried this down to write a program, and I had no idea how to actually write a program in it at all. I'm just completely confused. I couldn't actually apply the sort of syntax stuff that I learned. At the same time, I was going to be working on this hypermedia book -- that was my plans for that trip -- as always, you just rewrite your tooling over and over again. You [inaudible] like, "Just don't write the thing. Write the tools that make the thing," so I wanted to try out a new way to take mark down and generate PDFs in HTML, involving pandoc. I sort of had that all set up and I said, "Well, let me give this a try run. What I'm going to do is I'm going to write down what I learned in Rust as I learned it," and sort of from a Ruby programmers perspective, I'll use that and working with my new tooling to see if it works to actually work on the real book and it will also help me understand Rust better because one of the reasons why I do all this sort of teaching and advocacy is because I think it helps me learn. Just as much as I like helping other people learn stuff, I find that the repetition and being forced to explain something to someone else really make sure that I understand what I'm talking about. That's what the thing called Rust for Rubyist became boring. I'm a sucker for alliteration and that sort of became the first to tutorial for Rust from outside of the Rust projects proper. From there, I went on to submit some pull requests because everything's open source so I wrote some documentation and funny enough, my first ever pull request to Rust was actually rejected based on procedural grounds. At the time, they didn't actually accept pull request to master, they accept this other weird branch and GitHub don't have the ability to re-target the branch of the pull request. I also, always like this story because the thing that I now on the core team of, like my first attempt at getting involved was wrong and was turned down. But I'd fixed that pull request issue and got that in but it is kind of kept working on an open source capacity for a while and then decided to ask Mozilla if I can make it my job. Luckily they said yes. CHARLES: Wow, so what? Your job at Mozilla, like you just kind of showed up and said, "I would like to have a pretty cool, awesome job, working on this brand new language," and they were like, "Sure, come on in?" STEVE: To some degree, yes. That's one way of putting it. There is always the devil in these details. The first thing is that that wouldn't have worked if I had wanted a different kind of job. But when someone comes to you and says, "I would like to write documentation for you all day," you go, "Oh, my gosh. This literally never happens." If I had wanted to like work on the compiler, I'm pretty sure they would have said no. But because they knew documentation was important and they wanted documentation and because I had already been basically doing that job in an open source way, it's like I've had a year-long interview already. Then finally, they actually didn't have headcount at the time so I actually moved on as a contractor initially and had to do some freelance work and then eventually, once we were able to hire a new person kind of got it in. They're like a cool kid story. It's like, "Oh, yeah. I totally asked Mozilla for my perfect dream job and they just gave it to me," but like that's not really the way that it works. CHARLES: Got you. That actually leads me into a question that I have wanted to ask you. You write a very good documentation as your day job and documentation is extremely hard. For me, it is extremely hard to get and stay motivated to document something that I've worked on. I think that is probably a common enough experience for programmers. We don't recognize because we use documentation that it's extremely valuable and yet, it still this thing that is just a constant uphill battle. I'm curious, how do you manage to stay motivated to write documentation for an entire programming language over the span of years? STEVE: As I'm often want to do, this has like three or four different components. I guess, there's a couple of different things involved. The first one is that I actually got accepted to go to English grad school, although I ended up not pursuing that. Like writing, it's something I have just always enjoyed. I got a Bachelor in Computer Science but then I was going to go to grad school for English and due to university shenanigans, it didn't really work out. They told me I was going to get a free ride and then accepted me and then they were like, "Oh, wait sorry. You have to pay for this." And I was like, "Wait, sorry. No, I'm not doing this anymore. That's ridiculous." That's kind of always a predilection for writing and I think that the reason why that is because I grew up basically like on Slashdot and eventually then on Dig and Reddit and all these other things. I've kind of been writing a couple paragraphs a day, basically every day in my life since I was a little kid. I think that's something that's sort of like underappreciated. Documentation is hard but it's like a skill, like any other thing. Programmers will say, "I really want to learn TDD so I'm going to make myself do some TDD, I'm going to practice it, I'm going to focus on it and that's going to be a skill that I'm going to improve," and then they see documentation, and they kind of think it's this thing that you either have the skill or you don't. But writing is just another thing like anything else that you can practice at and get better. I think maybe it's because it's a little bit farther away from the wheel house of what you do day to day, that people aren't as interested in it but it is something you're truly interested in, I think the best way to get better is just to do it and do it a lot. I say this is I'm kind of in the middle of a little bit of writer's block at the moment to be honest. Then finally, I think the other reason that I'm motivated about docs is that I actually believe that documentation is an exercise in empathy. Like good documentation, the ideal as a programmer, the ideal thing that happens in documentation is I have a question about how to use something, I go to the documentation, and it says the exact sentence that answers my exact question. As those varying degrees of vaguely gives you the right idea, versus literally tells you exactly what to do. I think that the way that you can accomplish that excellent documentation is by understanding what your users need and then preemptively figuring it and/or writing that down. I think that that requires being able to put yourself in their shoes to some degree. I'm not going to say that that's a thing that I am perfect at but I think that a valuable skill when trying to improve docs's like figure out what they actually need and then give it to them. It's doesn't always have to be in that order, like sometimes people will fail to find the thing they need, tell you what you need, and then you give it to them. That's a strategy I've used a lot and that's one reason why I hang out in the Rust IRC all the time, helping people is for a very long time, I would like sit in IRC, someone would ask a question, I would answer the question, I'd go look in the docs and see if they could have figured out themselves. If they couldn't, that would be might next doc PR. It's just like even if it's just a couple sentences like add the question from IRC into the documentation and then just do that over and over and over again and then eventually, people start learning from the docs instead of actually ask questions because they already found what they needed. CHARLES: Right. I have a question about that because once you develop those skill, I think you also still run the risk of like burning out. I know that one of the reasons I tend to always fall back to like, "I'm going to spend my time doing coding instead of documentation," Or, "I'm going to spend my time --" Even with TDD is a great example is like with TDD you get to experience those short term wins. I think that kind of prevents you from burning out, where sometimes when I'm writing documentation, it feels like I'm screaming at the void. I might be screaming really loud and really, really well but I feel like a lot of times, I'm not experiencing those wins and I'm wondering if you have any tips for like experiencing those wins. Or getting that feedback to kind of keep you motivated and keep you doing the job. Also, trying to push the level of your own documentation skill and communications skill. STEVE: Yeah, experiencing the wins is definitely a part of it. But one of the other things that is sort of part of it is that like I do the opposite. I do a lot of coding but that's my side projects. When I get fed up with writing documentation, I maintain the [inaudible] implementation that Cargo uses to resolve Rust packages, for example. If I'm feeling a little stuck on docs, I'll go write some software and then come back to the docs so that kind of help with burnout. Another thing is that I think I'm just like perpetually in a state of just barely above burnout anyway so that also sort of factors in I guess. You know, it's like Bruce Banner. The secret is that I'm always angry so -- CHARLES: So you work on open source, is that what you're saying? STEVE: Yeah, exactly. We're working on open source all the time. I've been lucky enough to make open source as my job for, basically almost my entire professional career. Although not totally. You know, at some point, you just kind of get used to it. But in terms of experience and the wins, this is also one of the reasons why I like to teach beginners specifically is that beginners allow you to remember what it's like to be a beginner, which is also part of building the empathy. By interacting with beginners a lot, you also get a lot of those wins because beginners usually ask easy questions so it's easy to figure out the answer that stuff. Then you've got that positive feedback loop kind of going. To me it's maybe not IRC literally for every project but answering questions on Stack Overflow, or whatever message board forum you have, or Twitter, like actually interacting with other people. For me at least, that's how I get that kind of sense of not screaming into the void that you have to like go into the void and find the other people there, I guess, that I'm just like come to you necessarily. CHARLES: Speaking of empathy for beginners, it just occurred to me that we didn't actually talk about what Rust is. We probably should do that. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the Rust, language, as well as, you've mentioned Cargo and [inaudible] ecosystem for us as well? Let's talk about that. STEVE: Yeah, totally. Basically, Rust is a new-ish. I should stop saying new because it's almost not really at this point. A kind of new-ish programming language, heavily sponsored by Mozilla in development. Its idea is to become a new low-level programming language. But I always hesitate when I say this because one of my old pitches for Rust used to be like, "Rust could be used anywhere. You can use C." Then people go, "I would never write, C is so cool. Rust is not for me." I'm like not do that. But the reason that people don't use C is a lot of the problems that we are also trying to fix. I guess the primary differentiator for Rust in terms of like programming languages theory is that it is safe and safety as they got specific meaning. But basically C is a very dangerous sharp tool and you can cut yourself and people who use those tools often do cut themselves, whereas Rust is like it's got a safety guard on it. It's a compiled language so its compiler actively prevents you from making some of the worst mistakes that you can make in a low-level programming language like C. It turns out that when you start building up these sort of safe abstractions on top of these really fundamentally low-level details, you actually end up with a relatively high-level programming language. I talked to a lot of people, for example from JavaScript or Ruby world or Python world who come to Rust that are modulus, some libraries, and other things. This is actually high-level enough that I feel like I could do this instead of review JavaScript all day and I would be just as comfortable. The other day, I did a little bit pair programming and we actually recreated a JavaScript library in Rust that had virtually the same interface because like you can actually build relatively high-level things so pass an enclosure to a function that does some stuff is totally normal and Rust world. That's also very familiar to people that come from the Ruby, JavaScript, Python background. Also then, as part of that is we also culturally like Rust the projects, not Rust the programming language, really, really cares about helping people understand what systems programming and like lower-level programming means. A lot of people will not program and in C or C++ because they have no idea how to get help or to learn because many people in the low-level space have this RTFM attitude or like, "If you don't know what you're doing, then get out of here," whereas in Rust world, if you ask an extremely basic question, we're like, "Welcome. We would love to have you. I would be very happy to like walk you through," like explaining how that works on these kind of low-level details. Part of the culture of Rust is to bring this sort of low-level programming to people that have rejected it before for various reasons. The reason that Mozilla cares and the reason Mozilla sponsored the project is that Firefox is written in C++, so like four million lines of C++ last I checked. Last time we did a security audit of a really pants-on-fire, terrible security bugs in Firefox, I go to this website and now they run arbitrary code on my machine kinds of terrifying bugs. Basically happened because C++ is dangerous and sharp. If you screw up, there's the kind of bad things that can happen. About 50% of those security issues in Firefox would be eliminated at compile time by the Rust compiler. That's a really huge win in general so the idea is that we are slowly rewriting Firefox and Rust over time. That's one angle of why Mozilla cares about Rust. The second part is Servo, which is a rendering engine that's built in Rust from the ground up. If you think about Firefox proper, it's got Gecko as the rendering engine inside that actually determines where things go on the page and stuff. We're also writing a new one of those from scratch called Servo in Rust. That was also to prove that the language was doing the kind of things that we need it to do. But also Servo is an impressive piece of technology in its own right so it might become its own thing and/or bits and pieces of it are already making their way into Firefox. It's kind of also a way to improve our core products. That's why Mozilla cares. CHRIS: I was curious with Servo and Servo is the layout engine. Do you know if there are any plans to write a JavaScript runtime in Rust? STEVE: That question is complicated. Sort of what it boils down to is that a Git is inherently kind of unsafe by Rust definition of unsafety. It's actually controversial like when I talk to people that work on JavaScript engines, they're pretty much 50/50 split between, "Oh, yeah. Totally Let's absolutely rewrite the whole thing in Rust because we rewrite it every two or three years anyway from scratch so why not use Rust next time," to, "Since it's massively unsafe anyway, I don't see what benefit I would actually get so why not just stick with what we know." It's like very extreme ends. It's definitely feasible but I don't know if it's going to happen and/or when exactly. CHARLES: There were two questions that I had kind of to unpack some of the things that you said in there that were just really interesting to me. You said Mozilla plans to incrementally rewrite Firefox in Rust, where it's currently four million lines of C++. Now, how does that actually work where you're talking about swapping out large parts of the runtime with something that's written in a completely separate language? How does that communication happen between those language boundaries? STEVE: There's this concept called an ABI, not API. It may sound very similar -- Application Binary Interface. What this really boils down to is assembly language does not have function calls. That's not a concept, that's in assembly. People have come up with, "If I write a function and I map it to assembly code, what's the convention about how I do things like passing an argument and return values? How those all that stuff actually work?" Because assembly is so low-level, there are multiple different ways that you can make that happen. There's a number of different specifications how to make that work so C, the programming language, has a very straightforward ABI so any programming language that knows how to call C functions, uses these convention at the assembly level to do the function call. What you can do with Rust is you can say, "Please make this Rust function follow the C calling convention," in that way, any sort of thing that knows how to call C functions can call Rust functions directly. By doing that, you can sort of say like take a chunk of code, write it in Rust, expose a C interface, and then anything that knows how to talk to C, which is virtually everything, can talk to Rust equally as well. For example, one of the earliest production uses of Rust was actually inside of a Ruby gem because Ruby can be extended to C and Ruby knows how to have C extensions. It doesn't actually need to know that it's literally written in C. It just needs to know how to generate the assembly to call the correct functions. That's actually like a thing. Basically, the process is like write a component in Rust, expose this language independent wrapper, and then call into it like you would in C code. CHARLES: So it's really, just they're sharing memory and sharing is like right there in the process and there's no overhead for the intercommunication, it sounds like? STEVE: Yeah, exactly. You could also do all the regular things with JSON-RPC over a socket or whatever if you wanted to. The most efficient way is to literally include it as your binary just like anything else. CHARLES: Which kind of leads me into my next question, which is Rubyist and Pythonista people coming from JavaScript, one of the reasons we don't like to write in C is because, as you mentioned, they're so sharp so we have safety so that you don't have to worry about memory allocation for the most part, the garbage collector kind of has your back there. You access things by reference so you never have to worry about accessing memory. That's not there but kind of the conventional wisdom is that that all comes with a pretty big cost. It's like really, really expensive. I know when I was getting into Ruby and I was explaining a lot of the pushback I got from people doing C and even Java, it was like, "It's going to be super slow because all those high-level features that you love so much, you're paying a lot. A lot for them." My understanding is that's not really true with Rust. Is that fair to say? STEVE: Well, Rust does not have a garbage collector so, yes, it does not pay that cost because it doesn't exist. Now, that also raises a bunch of other interesting questions and basically what it boils down to is a compiler and especially one that has a typesystem, basically asks you to declare certain properties of your code like this function takes one argument only and it's always a string. That's sort of what type safety means. It kind of like a fundamental level. One of the ways that Rust uses type safety is to say, "This pointer to this memory always points to valid memory," and you have to be able to demonstrate that to me at compile time. From those couple of sentences, that sounds extremely complicated but it turns out that most programming code is written in a way that actually works this way. For example, like I'd talk to Yehuda Katz a number of times because we're friends, he also works on the Rust project and he's also well-known in JavaScript and to you all, I would assume. It turns out that the style of Rust code I write is actually extremely similar to the style of JavaScript code that I write is just sometimes there are some tweaks. It is true that those features often do take up a lot of memory and/or rely on any sort of expensive, from a low-level perspective, way of doing things. But it turns out that's actually more of a function of the way that the programming language is made in semantics. You could design a programming language that feels very similar but as very different underlying characteristics. For example, Closures in Rust, the compiler is smart enough to know that if you don't actually capture an environment. Say you're going to add one to every number in a list. You want to do like .map, pass in a closure that takes one argument X and adds one to every single X and then collect that up into like the map join kind of thing, to collect into a new array. That closure that you had passed a map, while it's a closure, it's taking that one argument X and doing X + 1, so it's not really capturing an environment at all. There's actually no reason to allocate a bunch of extra memory because it turns out, it's the same thing as a regular function. The compiler is able to optimize that call away completely to the same thing as if it was a normal function and not a closure, and therefore, you're paying no overhead. Even though, like syntactically, it looks kind of like a closure. Then you're kind of think of that applied to almost everything in Rust. For example, Rust has methods but almost all of them are actually statically dispatched at compile time, as supposed to dynamically dispatched, where you need to look through some sort of object hierarchy because we don't really have inheritance. There's no way to say like this might result to a colon, this class or this class is super class, or this class is super class so I have to do this runtime look up to call functions that just doesn't actually really exist. Part of it is through the fact that these coding patterns don't strictly require this stuff. It's just the way those languages are built and part of it is because as we were building a language, we were extremely sensitive to not include features that would require this really heavy overhead. In a language, that's like a low-level of focus on details, it's extremely hard to talk about the details without code. There's a lot of details, it turns out. CHRIS: One thing that I'm very curious about and one of the things that drew me to Rust actually is the fact that its typesystem is, I guess an ML typesystem. It is like much more [inaudible] to something that you would see in a functional programming language like Haskell, than you would like a regular C++ or Java. CHARLES: Now, a Chris-acronym alert. What is an ML-style typesystem? CHRIS: I'm sure Steve can answer this better than I can but it's a typesystem that uses the Hindley-Milner algorithm for type inference. It does a lot of the heavy lifting for you, in terms of correctness. Is that correct? STEVE: Yeah, I would say more accurately, ML is a programming language. It's the name of the language so by saying like an ML-like typesystem, he means like a Java-type typesystem. It's like a similar statement but about a different language. I always forget what ML stands for specifically but like OCaml has got ML at the end so like OCaml is one of the languages that sort of the family of ML. There's like two branches of functional programming, which of course everything is wrong when you try to organize things this way. Like you could also argue Lisp as a third but there's kind of like the Haskell-style and the ML-style are these two big pillars of functional language stuff and Rust tends to be in the ML sort of family. There's lots of common features between families of programming languages and all that kind of stuff. I think the ultimate point that Chris is trying to make is when I say that Rust is a typesystem, I do not mean it's like Java. There is a wide variety of typesystems and they do all sorts of different things and actually Java has been getting increasingly better over the years as well. But it is much more canned to a functional language in the typesystem, which I think is what you were getting at and serves the actual question, right? CHRIS: Yeah. Actually, I just looked it up and ML stands for MetaLanguage. It is actually is going to serve my question really well. ML was originally designed for theorem improving in math, which is part of why it works really well in functional programming languages. But it also makes sense if you use Rust, how the compiler work from the kinds of things that it catches, like a relatively low effort on your part because it is originally designed to completely prove out a theorem so the compiler is doing that to your program. That leads to my question which is I recently heard someone else on the Rust core team talk about one of the things that Rust really seeks to improve upon is concurrency and parallelism, which is historically very hard. To do that, you could use things like mutexes or reference counting, which Rust has. But they also lean extremely heavily on the typesystem itself to sort of guarantee that your concurrent code is actually going to run safely. On one hand, I'm interested in hearing you expound on that but I'm also really curious how the C, C++, Java programmers take to that sort of thing in Rust because as I understand it, that is a pretty novel approach to that kind of problem. I wonder if there's like pushback from the existing low-level systems community on that stuff. STEVE: I'll do the second part first because it's a little simpler. One thing that I will say is we sort of didn't appreciate over time because we were creating Rust for ourselves, roughly the C++ programmers are working on Firefox, which we had to say for ourselves because I was not literally one of those people but you get the idea, is like assuming that C++ people would be the primary audience. But it turns out that a lot of people that programming C or C++ are pretty happy with it and they like doing things that way. They're a lot smaller of a population than the number of programmers who do not program of those languages, which is true for any language, basically. The sum of all other people is bigger than your specific thing. What that means, I think that in retrospect this seems obvious but at the time, it was like hard to figure out or I definitely did not understand this at that time, that most people would come to Rust from not C or C++ than they would from C and C++, just even by virtue of numbers alone. A lot of the people who are not doing it are not doing it for reasons. They've already rejected it for some sort of purpose and the people who are still doing it often are like happy with what's going on. There's definitely a little skeptical at times of the kinds of things that we can accomplish. Also, our success has been pushing C++ specifically to grow a lot of safety things so we hear a lot of people say like, "In five years, C++ is going to have this tooling that's going to make it also pretty safe, even if it's not as safe as Rust. I'll just wait for that instead." Surprise, low-level programmers are extremely conservative bunch in many instances. The first part, which is the bigger and more interesting one, the typesystem is absolutely how concurrency works in Rust. This is extremely powerful for a number of different reasons. The first one, and I think the fundamental reason why it's done this way is that typesystems don't have any runtime overhead. When you're in a performance-heavy language, that's really the key. Originally, a long ago in Rust, we actually had a garbage collector even, like a very long time ago in Rust. The primary goal was always safety and we thought the only way to accomplish that was with lots of runtime checking, heavy runtime, and all these things. Over time, as the typesystem grew, we realized we could use more and more of a typesystem to eliminate more and more of the runtime because types are checked to compile time so they have no overhead cost, which is awesome. Like Rust references, doing this validation that they're always valid is completely a compile time construct that at runtime, they're literally the same thing as C pointers. That's one reason why the typesystem is really heavily useful for concurrency because you want things to be safe. We also don't want to slow them down. The whole point of concurrency in many instances is to get a speed up. If you introduce too many safety checks to make sure that your concurrency stuff works, you lose all the gains that you were trying to get from being concurrent in the first place. Having that like as low-cost as possible is extremely important. The second one is that concurrent problems are extremely difficult to debug because you need to recreate the exact set of circumstances under which the bug happens. If you have a bug because you have two threads that have a particular access pattern on a particular variable and that's where the bug is introduced, good luck coercing your operating system scheduler into scheduling those two threads at exactly the same way as when the bug happens. To some degree of the way that you fix a lot of concurrency bugs is by introducing an extreme amount of logging and then just kind of let it run and praying that you hit into the situation that causes the bug. That really brutal and doesn't really work. By using the typesystem and verifying it upfront, you just know it will work at runtime because you've already proved the concurrency property before your code even runs. It's also just like a better debugging experience, I think in general. The way that we accomplish this task is extremely novel. I guess I should also say extremely novel to working programmers, like almost all Rust is built off of existing research that has been known in academia for a relatively long time. That's actually one of the places where it gets the name from, it's like taking ten-year old ideas that have a little bit of rust on them, that have found usefulness and bringing them to [inaudible] research. Anyway, the way we accomplish this basically is the typesystem in the standard library, the way that you spin up a new thread, it has a particular type signature and the type signature says, "Only allow the types to be sent to this new thread. There are safe to pass between threads," and/or like, "Only allow references between this thread and that thread of types that are safe to use across thread." What that means is that when you try to spin up a thread and you passes a thing that doesn't work, you get a typesystem error. It turns out this is not concurrent safe collection so it does not have the prerequisite types so therefore, you cannot pass on this thread and you're done. That's sort of like at a core level of how these things work. Then for example, mutex is a type that does have that property so by sticking with non-concurrency thing into a mutex, now you can share it safely. That means we've guaranteed that the compile time that you'd safely done this transfer between threads and that kind of thing. It's not just about mutexes but that's sort of the general approach. The last thing I want to say briefly because I just said a whole bunch of things. I'm sure, I've raised a ton of questions here is that the other powerful thing about using the typesystem for concurrency guarantees is that other people can extend it. If you write a library in Rust, your library will be exactly as concurrency safe as the standard library and as the language itself. It's not like we provide the set of concurrent collections and then we vetted our own implementations and then you're kind of your own or building your own stuff. You can use those exact same types to help guarantee properties on your stuff. Also build alternate threading situations, as well that use the same things and the ecosystem all works together so everything is just concurrency safe by default because it's like a property of typesystems that are being built into the runtime or something. CHRIS: I know that recently, there's been a lot of, I guess excitement about this library called Tokio. It's not like there's future that kind of like promises in JavaScript, then there have been abstractions just kind of consistently being built up but it seems like Tokio is the next step and it's building towards a whole stack of higher-level concurrency things. Is what you just said enables that kind of thing to happen? STEVE: Yes. Tokio is using those exact same typesystem features in order to guarantee that when you have a chain of promises, to use the JavaScript terminology instead of future things, that you make sure that they're safe. This is not literally implemented yet but Tokio, for those who are not paid hyper attention to the Rust space because this is a cutting-edge, the library is gearing up for an initial release in the next week or two. Soon after you hear this or maybe right before you hear this, it's just going to be released. It's extremely cutting edge. But in some ways it follows sort of the node model of concurrency. There's event loops, you chained together, we call them futures, you call them promises together, you put that pile a future chain and do an event loop and watch the concurrency kind of go. One example of how Rust can do cool things is you could -- this is not implemented yet but it will be in the future -- run, let's say, five event loops on five different threads. Then you just tell the framework, "Please run this future chain onto one event loop. I don't care which one," and then it will automatically load balance across the five threads and five event loops because you've guaranteed the compile time that everything is safe to pass between threads so we know that that's just trivial to do and therefore it's like not a big deal. We can add those heavy duty features without worrying about introducing very subtle bugs, which is really cool. CHRIS: That kind of leads me to my next question, which is at The Frontside, we are pretty into web development, in case you didn't know. I am someone who follow Rust a lot and I find it very interesting. But for the most part, I don't have a need to do systems programming on a regular basis. I also wouldn't even really know where to start, if I wanted to do systems programming. As I learned Rust, I tend to always gravitate towards wanting to do things that I would probably do in Ruby or Python, like write the back-end for some web app or something. That goes okay but Rust is very much still in the process of building those abstractions to the point that it's relatively digestible. So I have a couple of questions. One is do you see Rust being a thing that would be used by web developers a lot more broadly and two, how would you recommend that people like me who aren't really familiar with systems programming start to really dig into Rust on a deeper level? STEVE: I would like to think that web programmers will use Rust more often and to be honest, originally, I was extremely skeptical of this. But it's been changing rapidly as time has gone on. Part of that is because as we've gained more experience, actually in programming in Rust, the fact is Rust used to be a lot less ergonomic than it is and now it's fairly ergonomic and will only get more so in the future. That's something that web people or at least, I come from Ruby so Rubyist care a lot about ergonomics, maybe more than anything else frankly. I'm not sure it's the first tool that you'll reach for but I do believe that sometimes, it makes a lot of sense. As one example that I will use, there's not a whole lot about this but basically, npm has started using Rust on the server side for powering the registry. They have three services in production now but they were basically like JavaScript as a language we all know what is the best language for doing this. We have a service that needs a little more oomph so maybe let's rewrite that in Rust instead and use it for those kind of things. I think that there's a lot of situations for web developers where they don't realize they have the power to make things faster without just adding on more servers. I think that's kind of like a compelling sort of [inaudible]. Any sort of background job like any sort of job queue thing is like often better written in a faster language but you would not reach for that faster language first because traditionally, those faster languages have been terrible to use. I think we continue to win on the ergonomics and continue to win the libraries that web developers will reach for Rust like more often than not. In terms of the learning rest on a deeper level, I think that one of the initial things and sounds like maybe you personally are a little past that but maybe not the people who listen this podcast is that I do think that sort of building the things that you would normally build in Ruby or JavaScript or Python is the good first step. For example, right now Advent of Code has been like a really fantastic way of having these little programming projects. If you haven't seen AdventOfCode.com, it's like every day in December up until Christmas, there's a new programming project that you can build the thing in. I've been doing those in Rust and that's a lot of fun and it's a good way to practice and gain some basic literacy. But after that moving at a low-level stuff, my personal thing and I know something you've expressed interest in the past is my side project is building an operating system in Rust. More so, than just that the pitch is, "You've written JavaScript before. Let's write an operating system together. Here is this companion book and I'll show you how," and that's called intermezzOS. It's like I'm basically trying to rebuild an operating systems curriculum but in Rust instead from nothing, like we start off with assembly code and move up into Rust code. CHARLES: Now, you can't even use anything like all the things that we've been describing like threads, kernel level callbacks. You get none of that, right? You have to implement it all from scratch. You can't use POSIX or whatever. You know, 90% of your code ends up going through. STEVE: It turns out that and it's sort of like for reasons that hopefully I'll be able to fix in the future, you need about like 200 lines of assembly code before you get into Rust and then you basically don't need to use assembly again, really. It's not that big of a barrier in terms of [inaudible] things and its copy-paste stuff that I explained extremely heavily so it's like totally an accomplished real thing. Then you're in a real programming language and you can do more normal things on top of it. But one thing about that because it is my side project, the kernel is actually farther along than the tutorial is and I actually need to find some time to write more of the freaking tutorial but this is kind of my personal long-term project over the next, let's say, decade and to have a completely free and open source tutorial for you to learn about operating system developments. That's one of the things I've been doing. Another one that I think that is really extremely useful is once you gain some amount of literacy on this, you can actually start to learn more about how your regular programming language works. I've been giving this conference talk recently. It's called 'Exploring Ruby Through Rust', and I'm like, "Once you know this low-level stuff and you gain this literacy, you can look at the source code of your language as interpreter and learn stuff about it and you can contribute to it maybe even." Maybe that's not the most practical thing or whatever but now that I've spent a bunch of time with Rust, I understand Ruby on a far, deeper level than I ever did before because now I'm not afraid to go poke around in the internals and learn how it really works under the hood and I understand what those internals do far better. Maybe five years ago, I could have told you like, "Ruby is garbage collector. It's extremely basic. But I don't really know what that means." And now I can be like, "Ruby has this mark and sweep generational garbage collector. But it's not compacting or concurrent yet but maybe in a year or two. Now, that's not just a bunch of buzzwords because I have this low-level literacy." CHRIS: Yeah, that's definitely something. I forgot about but every time I go learn something in Rust and initially this happens a lot. Every time I do that and I go back to JavaScript or something else, I find that Rust inadvertently taught me something about the language that I actually work on every day. Especially, when it comes to things like references, values, and the difference between them and debugging weird prototype behavior in JavaScript became so much easier after I had spent some time working with Rust and had had to like actually deal with passing around references or dealing with life times or having the compiler yell at me for a lot of things that I thought were totally normal. Then I'm going back to JavaScript, it's like, "Wait a second --" Suddenly a lot of these pieces are starting to fit together and before what was just as weird mystery, now I can totally see what is happening and start to think about how to fix it. Even though I don't even have the same tools that I do with Rust, it still is extremely useful from that perspective. STEVE: That's awesome. I'm glad to hear it. That's how I definitely felt with Ruby for sure. CHARLES: You know, in terms of actually using it for day to day stuff, is there other plans, is the ecosystem already supporting things, say, a web framework? Like a low-level web framework like Sinatra or Express or even higher one like Rails. STEVE: I guess, like you've already qualified it as web stuff. But I would say, in a broader sense, whether or not Rust is ready today for you, it depends entirely on the ecosystem. I feel like 80% is productive in Rust as I did ever in Ruby. But that's only if there's a library that I don't have to rewrite myself because it doesn't exist yet. That number is actually growing rapidly so I just look because it's like the end of the year and our package ecosystem is actually doubles. This is a request from earlier. I didn't expect Cargo so Rust basically has bundler or yarn/npm built into the language itself. We distribute it with Rust and we have all that great package ecosystem shenanigans. Another great example of Rust over a language like C is the tooling. Basically, what happened was Yehuda and I kind of showed up in Rust world and we're like, "Why are you still using make files. We know a better way." And they're like, "Okay." Then he builds the equivalent of bundler for Rust. Then everyone's like, "Oh, yeah. This is way better. We're not using make files anymore." The tooling situation is very familiar to a dynamic programming language person because we literally had the same people write the tools. That also means you can share packages freely and briefly so operating system development thing is totally intense to be able to use your package manager to download packages to help you build an operating system. For example, X86 has custom assembly instructions that you need to use when interacting with the hardware and someone has already built a package on [inaudible] that wraps the inline assembly up in a nice to use Rust functions. I can just include that package and use it when building my operating system, which is totally mind-blowing. The npm is sort of feel into OS development is just real intense and cool. Back to the ecosystem thing, though. For web application specifically, it's good and also bad. There's actually multiple different web frameworks already at different levels of comparison. For example, you have Nickle which is kind of like Sinatra and you have Pencil, which is kind of like Flask and Python, which is also kind of like Sinatra. Then you have Iron, which is kind of like expressed in JavaScript. There's also like I know of at least two. One of is has been worked on but it's not been actually released. But the code is at least open source yet. I know a second that is being developed fully in private that has not had any public release yet. Then when the Tokio stuff comes out, People are going to be building new frameworks on top of the new async shenanigans and/or porting the async stuff into the existing frameworks. We kind of have a lot of options but there's also a lot of churn and activity and stuff going on in that space so that either terrifies you or makes you enthusiastic. They're basically is like that. We definitely don't have a Rails yet. I don't think that's because a Rails will never exist but because it's a much bigger project to build a Rails than to build a Sinatra. CHARLES: Yeah, and you just need those foundational pieces there in place before you really want to attempt that. STEVE: And I think Tokio is the real foundational piece and it's just taken us a long time to put it all together. The initial tests in Tokio, we could do a 'Hello, World' benchmark like the tech and power benchmark. Some of you are already familiar with those things, or not, they're like 'Hello, World' benchmark. We actually got faster than they are fat than all of them. It just edged out the fastest Java, which is currently the reigning benchmark on it. That's like extremely compelling. Even if after all this stuff is built on top of it but it's taken us a while to build those foundations and we're just getting that point like Tokio is going to have a release, hopefully before Christmas. I've been assured by the end of the year and then people are going to build stuff on top of it and it's just going to explode from there. Here's another little interesting pitch. I'll give you for this, is that one of the things I like about Rust on early ecosystem is it means that if you want to be that person who built the library that does X that everyone uses, there's lots of opportunity in Rust world right now. Where there's a lot of foundational libraries that you could be the person who wrote that thing when everyone knows and loves and uses. Like JavaScript is still kind of there. In Ruby, every library basically exists already so there's no more room to build a foundational thing. But if you're someone who likes working on open source and that story is compelling to you like getting involved in a younger ecosystem, it means that you can have a much larger impact. I maintained the [inaudible] library that things used. The only reason that's true is because I was around before we had one and then Yehuda wrote the initial version and now, I'm maintaining it. There's tons of space out there so if writing a web framework is the thing that's interesting to you, Rust is a great place to explore and actually doing that at the moment. CHARLES: Steve, one of the things that I know you do is you actually write the Rust Book. I heard that you're also in the process of rewriting it along with Carol Goulding, I believe. I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about that. STEVE: As part of this Steve getting the job right in the docs on Rust thing, I kind of working on lots of stuff so up to Rust 1.0, we knew we needed to have some long form explain all the things that Rust so that became what's called the Rust programming language which I named so because the C programming language and the C++ programming language, the names of the foundational books for those languages so I wanted to continue kind of in that tradition. But there is some problems with that which is I'll say that I'm a little harder on my own work than I think other people are so I hear people tell me all the time that they love the Rust Book and that it's like one of the best programming books that have ever written. But I think it's not that great. The reason why is also because I just know that the way in which I wrote it. You have to remember that Rust 1.0 happened in May of 2015. We were working on language for six or eight years before 1.0 happened so there was lots of changes, language is changing on a daily basis. Now, it's super stable like super, super, super stable. But what that also means is in some like deeper philosophical sense, nobody had had experience programming in what really was Rust yet because we were still like finishing building it's so like how do you write a book on a language that like the precursor language is what you're using and you're trying to see like what is it going to actually end up being like at 1.0. Because it's not like we can just say, "It's done. Now, go write a book, Steve and then we'll release it at that time." The circumstances in which I wrote the original book were I had a very intense deadline of this has to be done by the 15th of May. While the language was coming together, it takes a couple months to put together a book so I had to make sure that the stuff I was starting I would need to go back and re-fix. That also means that I was like much more vague in some places where pieces were still falling into place and you're like, "This is definitely going to be the same. But this might change so I'm going to leave that part off," and then I just have to plow through because the deadline. All those things coming together means that I kind of put together this book that while good and I'm proud of the work that I did, I can do much better. At this point in time, we now have a full year and a half after Rust 1.0 has come out. I know the struggles that people have when learning Rust. I know the ways in which they succeed or fail and I've talked to a lot of people so I'm sort of rewriting the book now, bringing that knowledge and understanding in as well as the fact that the language just been around for a minute so it's much easier. As part of that, I brought on Carol. She goes by Carol Nichols or Goulding. She both has her maiden name and her married name. She's been one of my best friends for a very long time so I'm extremely happy that she's my co-author on this book. The two of us together and working on doing the rewrite, I think that it is possibly the best thing I've ever done or worked on as far as books go, like I'm extremely happy with it and you can read it online right now, if you want to and see if I'm right or wrong about that. But I think it's a far better book than the original book was. It's actually going to publish at No Starch as well. We're donating all the proceeds to charities since we're being paid to actually write the book in the first place, like [inaudible]. It's going to be a much, much easier and better way to learn the language, I think as well. CHARLES: If we want to check that out, where can we find the new version? STEVE: I'll give you a link to put in show notes or whatever as well. But it's Rust-Lang.GitHub.io/book. There's also just like a book repo in the Rust Lang organization on GitHub. All things in Rust is being developed fully in the open so you can read the drafts and see what's been done where. We're getting towards the end, slowly but surely so I'm hoping that's going to be done relatively soon. CHRIS: Well, I'm looking forward to it. CHARLES: Fantastic. Sounds like the documentation is there. It's excellent. The community is there. It's excellent and from what I'm hearing like the kind of the tower of the ecosystem is really being built up. It's not as high as a bunch of other places but it's definitely high enough to jump in and get your feet wet. If you're you know coming from almost any walk of programming. STEVE: It's a lot of work but we seem to be doing good. CHARLES: All right. Well, thanks for stopping in and talking about this with us, Steve. STEVE: Thanks so much for having me. It's been a lot of fun. CHARLES: Yeah, and now Chris, we do need to kind of figure out what is going to be our Rust project here at The Frontside. CHRIS: I'm up for that challenge. CHARLES: Yeah, that'll be some Christmas homework. All right-y. Take care everybody and thanks, as always, for listening. We'll see you next week.

Jamison Dance: @jergason | Blog | GitHub | Fivestack | Soft Skills Engineering Podcast | React Rally Show Notes: 00:58 - The Elm Programming Language 01:36 - Who should try Elm? What is the attraction? 03:09 - Scaling an App Across a Team; Conventions 06:19 - Routing 07:48 - Writing Tests 09:38 - Jumping Into Elm from a Component-based Framework 12:20 - Tooling 17:28 - Productivity 19:21 - The Elm Community 25:13 - Could Elm Replace JavaScript? 28:28 - Lessons Learned from Elm to Write Better JavaScript 33:45 - The Elm Syntax 35:49 - Checking Out New Languages and Communities 37:31 - Data Modeling Resources: Elm Packages elm-format Evan Czaplicki: Let's Be Mainstream! User-focused Design in Elm The Elm Guide Elm on Slack The Elm Tutorial Jamison Dance: Rethinking All Practices: Building Applications in Elm @ React.js Conf 2016 Transcript: ALEX: Hey, everybody. Welcome to The Frontside Podcast Episode 49. I am your host, Alex Ford, developer at The Frontside. With me as well is Chris Freeman. Chris, do you want to introduce yourself? CHRIS: Hi, everybody. I'm Chris. I'm also a developer at The Frontside. ALEX: We have a really special guest for today. I'm really excited. Jamison Dance is with us. JAMISON: Hello. ALEX: Jamison runs Fivestack Software Consulting Company, hosts Soft Skills Engineering Podcast, organizes React Rally Conf, and spells 'array.length' incorrectly sometimes. Is this true? JAMISON: It is true, yeah. I think I have a special ESLint plugin to yell at me now when I do that or something. But that has caused some pain in my life. CHRIS: Oh, that was very brave. Thank you. ALEX: We're going to be talking Elm today and writing better JavaScript with Elm. This is really exciting for me. I've gotten the chance to dive into the Elm tutorial a little bit, which is an absolutely beautiful tutorial if you haven't checked it out yet. JAMISON: Yeah, Elm is a programming language that runs in the browser and compiles down to JavaScript. It's a pure statically-typed programming language, which if that doesn't mean anything to you, don't worry. The take away for you is that Elm tries really hard to make it easy to write programs that don't crash and are easier to refactor and easier to work on and maintain, basically. CHRIS: And Elm is a language in of itself but it is pretty specifically intended for front-end development. Is that correct? JAMISON: Right now, there are some long term plans, but yeah. For now, it's front-end for building UIs and applications in the browser. ALEX: I heard about Elm. When should I check it out? Who do you see jumping into this language? JAMISON: I think it's aimed at people that want to build robust applications which is so vague, it sounds meaningless. Maybe I talk about what attracted me to it. The two things where I was interested in functional programming -- that's kind of like the technical language wonk, like geeky side of it. But the other side is I've worked for a while in some fairly large JavaScript applications and I've seen the nightmares that I can create for myself In just building something that works and is just really hard to work on. So the idea of a language that's focused on keeping your productivity high as the application skills and as the team skills was really attractive to me. Like the bio says, if I spell array.length wrong, sometimes I catch it, sometimes I don't, then my program breaks. Elm has a compiler that runs on all your code and basically, make sure that your code cannot crash. You could still have bugs and you can still just make your code do the wrong thing but it helps eliminate whole categories of errors. It just makes them impossible to create in Elm. If you're interested in functional programming or if you're interested in just building stuff that is easy to work with, like this kind of this curve of productivity over time where some environments and some languages start out really high, it's really easy to build something fast at the beginning and then maintaining it is just really hard so the productivity drops over time. Elm is trying to kind of flatten that out so your productivity stays high throughout the lifetime of your application. CHRIS: I actually have a question about that. I'm planning on bringing this up later but you gave me such a good segue that I feel compelled. You mentioned that one of the things that is nice about Elm-type system is that it helps scale an app, especially when it comes to a team. My experience there are kind of true different facets to what scaling an app across a team looks like. One is the categories of bugs that something like [inaudible] compiler helps you catch. But the other is, and this is totally coming from the fact that I use Ember every single day, that conventions also help scale across a team. I'm curious like what I've looked at with Elm, it looks like they definitely have the type system there and error messages there to help quite a bit. But I haven't seen conventions arising yet in terms of a lot of things, about how you build a front-end application. I'm curious, is it that those conventions are there and just haven't found them yet or they're still very much in development? Or is that not even really a goal for Elm in the same way that it might be nothing like Ember or Angular. JAMISON: You mentioned first the kinds of bugs that the compiler will help you catch. I want to talk about that really quickly. If people aren't familiar with what a compiler or type system will do at build time, it checks all of your code to make sure that all of the variables and inputs and outputs from functions match up. So you say this function takes in an 'int' and returns a string and it will go find everywhere that calls that function and make sure that they're always passing in an 'int' and return it, so that it always return a string. It kind of does that throughout the whole flow of the program. It eliminates those kind of areas where you just get the interface wrong. The program is huge. You don't remember all the inputs to a function so you just like passing an object when it expects a string or something and then later on it will explode. You don't get those errors with Elm which is the first kind of thing you're talking about. You mentioned that conventions and I'm not on the Elm core team or whatever. I don't have any special insight but my experience is Elm very much wants to create strong conventions around how you build applications. The Elm architecture is kind of a way to build front-end applications that is basically baked into the language. There isn't like a UI framework for Elm. It is Elm. That to me is a huge point on the strong convention side. There isn't like an Elm fatigue because there isn't a choice between a hundred different UI frameworks in Elm. Some patterns around how you build apps this small, I think are still being established but I think there are strong conventions already and the trend of the Elm community is towards picking strong conventions. You'll see Evan, the creator of the language, He'll talk about how he wants to have one really good library instead of 15 overlapping libraries of varying quality to solve the same problem. Elm has conventions already. The places where it doesn't have strong conventions are I think places that will get filled in but the goal is to pick up the language and you get everything you need to build an application attached to it that's all kind of figured out for you. CHRIS: It's been interesting you mentioned the thing about it's better to have one good library, rather than 15 libraries of varying quality. I've seen that a little bit in practice. One of the things that I started looking for pretty early on when I was messing with Elm was what client-side routing look like. There are a couple of different routing libraries. But if you look at them, you can see that they're actually kind of this progression, like you can see how they have built on each other and they're kind of like building up the stack of abstractions toward one final solution. It's very interesting because it's not like those other libraries that are still there. If you really wanted to use just a regular URL parser and build your own, you could. But you can also see this development towards something that anyone could take off the shelf and start using. JAMISON: Yeah, and Elm has been around, I think it was 2011 when it first started. But really, Elm as like a popular thing that people hear about and use in production is only a couple of year's old maybe. There are still some things that are evolving like that. I think you're right that they're evolving towards convention instead of, in my mind JavaScript values, the proliferation of tons of different ideas and just wild exploration. Elm seems like it values a little more consensus and aligning the community behind one solution. I think it's happening, if it's not there yet, it'll get there, I guess. ALEX: I have a question about writing test in Elm and how that feels different than writing tests in JavaScript because the way I find myself writing tests right now is I understand the language to be fragile and I understand some frameworks have some fragility because of that language so I find myself writing really strong tests that are easy to break. I imagine that maybe in Elm, that's a little bit different with this very strong convention that you're talking about. JAMISON: Yes, some of it is around not having to be as defensive in your testing. If you wanted to get really, really down in the nitty-gritty in JavaScript, there are just an incredible array of different inputs you would have to test to make sure someone doesn't pass in like [inaudible] to this function where you think it's an array or whatever, like you just don't have to write any of those tests because the compiler catches that. We haven't talked about purity at all and this concept in functional programming where your functions can't cause side effects. They can't just go make a network request or write to disc or console.log like right in the middle. The functions take an input and return an output. You can do that in JavaScript. You can write your functions that way but because that feature is built into the language, it's the only way to write functions in Elm which makes it really easy to test functions because you just pass them stuff and you check what they return. In my experience, that makes them easier to test. You still build UIs and you still make network requests so you still construct some HTML at some point in your program. You can if you want to test that the HTML looks right or that elements have certain classes and stuff. But I guess what I'm saying is the tests feel like they're testing the behavior more than the edge cases when I write tests in them just because the compiler eliminates a bunch of weird edge cases you don't have to worry about. ALEX: Coming from a component-based JavaScript framework, what is going to be my experience jumping into Elm? How is that going to feel different for me? JAMISON: That's a great question. Myself and almost everyone I've seen get started in Elm that comes from something based around components that the instinct is to create components in Elm for everything. You have a select box in Ember or React or whatever and you wrap it in components. You can just reuse it everywhere. In Elm, if you try to do that, you will hate it and think Elm is broken and horrible and just sucks. It's because the Elm architecture comes with, I guess, you could call it boilerplate, there's some work you have to do to build a component that can do IO and respond to events and stuff. That work is... I don't know, maybe like a dozen lines of code. Then there's some work to wire those components up together, that's maybe a couple more lines of code. So if you have like 300 components in your Elm application, you'll have... I don't know, like thousands of lines that just wiring stuff together code which won't really buy you that much because in my experience, using components is an attempt to make things understandable and isolate concerns. You get a lot of that from having peer functions and having a strong a static-type system. In Elm, you end up making a lot wider components, instead of having this deep tree of lots of components nested inside of each other. You'll have a much flatter but wider tree. That took a while to get used to but I think it makes sense for the language now. You can still create reusable things but you focus more on creating reusable functions instead of creating components that are black boxes, that you kind of package up and pass around. You can still do reuse but it's a little bit different than reuse in a component-based framework. This is a thing. I would say, in the last year, there's been a lot more discussion on blogposts and screencasts and stuff on a year ago, a couple of people were talking about it but there weren't really lots of great examples of this and now, I think, even the Elm Guide has some examples of reuse without components. ALEX: Yes. One of my favorite things about component-based JavaScript is because I've learned to test them so well. Even though, sometimes they can turn into a configuration ball, I've been able to make them very reliable, even if they are deeply nested so going away from that scares me. JAMISON: Yeah, it totally scared me. It felt wrong and weird and bad. But now, it doesn't. I don't know, I'm used to it, I guess, and I still write a lot of JavaScript. It's not that hard switching back and forth between those two mental models but I definitely had to develop a different mental model when writing Elm code. CHRIS: I'm interested in talking about some of the tooling. I know Elm has a lot of tooling. They have elm-reactor and they have the compiler. But I think I know that you also do the kind of dip into some of the JavaScript tooling if you are getting into bigger Elm application. You're probably still going to need something like a Webpack or Browserify, I guess. I'm curious what's your experience with that has been? JAMISON: You can definitely just write an Elm application and then compile it into this JavaScript file then drop that in a script tag on your page and it will all work. The complexity can get very low. If you want to do more advanced stuff like talking to JavaScript, You can still do all that without any additional tooling, if you would like. If you have a lot of dependencies in your JavaScript or you have a large JavaScript application or code base that you want to integrate with Elm, then you can use something like Webpack or Browserify. In my experience, it's no more painful than Webpack or Browserify. All the rest of that stuff already is. I don't know, there's an Elm Webpack plugin that will run the Elm compiler and allow you to import your Elm application into JavaScript file and I think there are similar stuff for Browserify and some of the other module bundlers. I don't think there's anything radically new on the Elm side as far as bundling up your application or anything like that. It just kind of works like you expect. The places where, I think Elm tooling is cool in ways that I haven't seen that much in JavaScript are in the Elm package manager. If you are building a package yourself, it has automatic semantic versioning built in so they have a type system. They can detect when your interfaces change automatically. If you try and release a version that you change the interface and you don't bump the version, they will like yell at you because that's a breaking change. There's some cool stuff around that that you get with the language having a static-type system. The debugger is a new thing as of a couple of weeks ago. That's built into the language. You might have seen similar stuff in other frameworks but it's all kind of extra add-ons. In Elm, because it has kind of a framework built into the language, they can also build in a debugger for that framework in the language. You can enable debug mode, pull up an application, click around, do a bunch of stuff, and then it'll record a log of all those actions and you can scroll back through them and jump to any point in that timeline to reload the state of the application to that point. You can export that log to a JSON file and then kind of send that around, have someone load that log in, and it'll get your application back into the same state. It's a really good for creating bug reports. You click some button 15 times and then it breaks -- do that, export the logs, send that to someone else. Instead of having to follow all the steps, they can just load your state and then figure out what's broken about that. I think that there are some tooling advances that are enabled by both the language itself, like the static type system and also the focus on strong conventions and frameworks built into the language. Does that makes sense? CHRIS: Yeah, absolutely. As you were talking, I thought about was that some tooling that you lean a lot on in JavaScript is kind of rendered unnecessary by the error messages in Elm. All of the things that you may bring in an extra tool to catch in JavaScript when in Elm will just tell you when it compiles and it will give you this just unbelievably friendly, informative, and easy to diagnosed error message that tells you like, "This is the exact line where this happened. Maybe you mean to do this instead," because it can make all sorts of inferences about, like what you probably meant to do based on the type signature you gave to a function or something. I could see that going a long way toward making a subset of tools just unnecessary in Elm. JAMISON: Yeah, a lot of tooling around JavaScript has sprung up to address... I don't know, not weaknesses but areas where people have identified JavaScript needs a little help now. If that's passive aggressive enough way to say it. The language is 20 years old. It was created way before people were building giant, million line code bases in it. But Elm is much younger and has the benefit of a lot of history and hindsight. It turns out you can avoid a lot of tools if you eliminate their need. I have had that weird feeling where I'm building a JavaScript project and it feels like I'm flying a 747. There's a thousand switches everywhere. I'm like powering up a bunch of different things. It feels like I'm being really productive because I'm configuring ESLint in Webpack, in Flow, and all these different tools. Then I go to Elm and I just start typing and it feels like I'm less productive but I've just skipped so many steps. It is a different feeling. ALEX: Would you say that maybe you feel so productive in JavaScript because it has such a strong community, with so many examples and so much shared code? Elm being a younger community, and this is strictly an assumption, may not be at that maturity level where you can share code and have that particular level of productivity. JAMISON: Yes. There are definitely third party libraries in Elm. There's probably a few orders of magnitude difference in the community sizes between Elm and JavaScript. There are just way more people writing JavaScript. The likelihood that someone will have ended up at your weird feature that you need for some random program is probably a little higher. There are some numbers differences. In my experience, the people that are really into Elm right now enjoy solving their own problems because it does feel like they're a little bit more of your own problems to solve. It's a tradeoff. I was going to say, if you value 100% focus on building business features, JavaScript might be better but I don't necessarily think that's the case. Using a bunch of third party code comes with a cost and some of that cost is you have to understand the API and some of it is you have to kind of take some responsibility for knowing where it breaks down. In Elm, I think that responsibility is lessened by the language because the API is a lot easier to understand when you can look at the types that the API creates and uses. It's a lot harder for it to just break your stuff. I think you could make the argument that even though there's a giant repository of JavaScript code out there, a lot of it might not be great for your program. But if you're using Elm, the smaller amount of code that is out there already could be easier to use and help you even more productive. ALEX: I would like to try to segue into the Elm community now and what that looks like? What is this Elm community? How do you get involved, say, I'm coming from JavaScript or any language and I love it? Maybe my work doesn't use Elm just yet but how can I contribute? How can I continue to write more Elm code for not just my specific use cases? JAMISON: I think my favorite thing about the Elm community is its focus on friendliness and learnability. I call it 'ruthless focus'. They are aggressively committed to building a language that is easy for people to pick up. If you are coming to Elm for the first time, you're pulling your hair out because it looks totally different from JavaScript. That might not make any sense to you. But a lot of the ideas that Elm has come from other languages like Haskell or ML languages and those languages, I would say, are proudly hard to get into. It's like a badge of honor to learn Haskell and then you like bleed to do it and then you enter this elite club where you got to talk about monoids all day. Elm is like a strong negative reaction against that, like they want this to be a language that people can learn and get some of the benefit. Because there are cool things in languages like Haskell so the goal is to take some of those cool things and other cool things from other places too. But put them in a package that is easy for people to pick up without devoting their life to an arcane branch of mathematics. I think they do a really good job of that. I've done Haskell pretty hard a few times and I'll bounce off it some more. I don't feel confused about Elm at all in anyway. In Elm, it's not like I'm some genius that can pick it up. It's that they have eliminated a lot of complexity and made it friendly and easy to learn. I think that carries over into the community. They're really interested in helping people who are new to functional programming or are new to programming in general. They're also just nice. if there's an Elm Slack channel that you hang out in and like any internet chat channel, sometimes people will get a little testy and in the Elm one, they're so good at defusing situations, calming people down, like apologizing, and like being human beings. You don't see a lot of rage-y arguments where people say mean things about each other. I've been really impressed with that. I want to talk a little bit more about what the community is like and then maybe talk about how to get into it, if that's okay. I would say the community is -- I know, it's evenly split but it seems fairly evenly split between people coming from JavaScript's who don't have any functional programming experience and people coming from functional programming who don't have any UI experience. It's interesting seeing those two very different groups come together and they're both attracted to Elm for different reasons and they kind of pull it a little bit in different ways. But it makes an interesting group of people to be around because you learn a lot of cool UI stuff, a lot of cool functional programming stuff. ALEX: Sounds like a recipe for success, really. JAMISON: Yeah. I think if they can make functional programming not have the snootiness that it has sometimes in genders and people, then I think functional programming is great technically. I think the culture around it can be just obnoxious. So I think if Elm can take the good things without the bad things, that's amazing and that's kind of what it's trying to do. As far as getting into the Elm community, are you talking about writing open source or contributing to open source or just where they hang out? ALEX: Yeah, I was talking about contributing to open source but maybe Elm is just a better community for a certain style of contribution and maybe that looks like a blogpost and a coding example of how to do something yourself. JAMISON: Like any new technology, there are definitely in the kind of evangelism phase. If you do write a blogpost that says nice things about Elm, there's like a horde of people that will swarm all over it because they like people to say nice things about Elm. There's a bunch of people like writing books, doing screencast, speaking on it, introducing people to it, and that's well received very well. I think there's at least one podcast on Elm already. So all that to say that I think the community receives kind of education and I guess, you can call it evangelism stuff very well and they're excited about that. If you are interested in contributing to open source, you can actually go to Package.Elm-Lang.org and you can see all of the Elm third party libraries and they all have these GitHub for the backing of its package manager. They all have source links right there. You can just find any random library and get to its source. I think the community is pretty open to contributions from people. If you want to see Elm source code and contribute to it, they're very open to that. This is kind of a culture shock to me coming from other communities where you can't just like show up, submit a patch to Elm core, and then have a discussion, and get it accepted or rejected. They're not super open to direct code level contributions. They would prefer more use case feedback, discussion, and suggestions. Then the core team will take all these feedback in, think about it, come up with a plan, and then implement it, instead of take a lot of little patches from people. Some of the core libraries are a little bit harder to directly contribute code to but they are very open. If you try and use it, you run into something that doesn't work the way you expected and you can create a small example that demonstrates that. They're super open to discussions about that to influence the direction of the API. CHRIS: I think over the course of JavaScript and front-end development, there has been kind of waves of abstraction over JavaScript. There were just libraries and there were things like backbone and then it kind of moved into doing something like CoffeeScript or TypeScript and a couple others where the idea is -- ALEX: Good old Objective-J. CHRIS: Yeah, exactly. You might be transpiling down a JavaScript but there are still very much a clear link between something like CoffeeScript and JavaScript. Elm seems like it is one of a new batch of approaches where we're actually going to just sidestep JavaScript almost entirely. Like it is going to be like JVM bytecode or a browser and we're going to build an entirely new language on top of that. I know there's also a bit like ClojureScript, Scala.js, and PureScript and I'm curious, do you think that is going to be a continuing trend that front-end development is going to land on a mainstream solution that might not actually be JavaScript at all? Or do you see it as eventually circling back and pulling a lot of these features into JavaScript itself? JAMISON: I don't think that front-end development will be Elm in like five years or whatever. I don't think it's going to replace JavaScript at all. I think it might definitely influence tooling libraries or the language itself. The Elm architecture looks a lot like Redux because the Redux author read Elm and they're like, that's cool and then they wrote it in JavaScript. There are other places where like time-travelling debugging. I believe the JavaScript thing came from the Elm time-travelling debugger as well. There are cases where it has influenced JavaScript's already and I think that will continue to happen. Flow is a gradual-type system. You can lay it on top of JavaScript and they have done a lot of work on their error messages influenced by Elm. It's super cool to see all those influences back into the JavaScript community as a whole. I think there are classes of people who are more interested in doing some sprinkling of JavaScript on to pages. They might not even be like programmers really. They're kind of like designers who do a little bit of coding and I don't know if Elm makes sense for that kind of role where you just need to add a little bit of interaction. You can do that but it doesn't seem like a thing that group would focus on. It's just really hard to change the world. I write a lot of JavaScript so I'm bias but it feels like it's the most popular language in the world and being the most popular Language in the world is not a thing that's easily overthrown. But I think it will grow, like programming will look more like Elm does just in general in the future and I think JavaScript will as well. But I also think Elm will continue to grow. There's a lot of excitement about it and there's not a ton of people bouncing hard off of it. There's some people they're looking at it and they're like, "Eh, not yet." Some people just look at it and hate it. But from people that use it, I don't see a lot of those people dropping out. I've seen most of them sticking around. I think the trend is definitely -- Elm will grow. But I don't know if that will take over the world. ALEX: Then what lessons are developers bringing back to say and to write better JavaScript? JAMISON: I think a lot of people are learning about types and data modeling. If you learn programming through JavaScript, the idea that there's this defined shape that your data has and some tool will help you make sure that your data always looks like that is kind of like strange and foreign. I think a lot of people are learning that there's value in that. If you grew up in the MongoDB / Angular world like everything is schema-less, you just kind of slam some JavaScript objects everywhere, it all works, then it breaks, and you don't know why and you need to track it down. But I think seeing the value and thinking a little bit more clearly about what your data looks like and then forcing that through tooling is one lesson. That is taking a little bit more root in JavaScript. All the stuff around functional programming in JavaScript is like achieved buzzword status by now. But there is definitely still some education happening around how it's easier to test peer functions, how they're easier to understand and reuse, and how it's good to write them. I think Elm will continue to push that. Some of it though is there are some ideas you can take from Elm but it's just so much easier to use them to their fullest potential in a language and environment built around those ideas. You can kind of like cram a type system on to JavaScript. It's still really easy to get around and it does not model side effects at all. The elm type system modeled side effects so it helps you reason about where my program can talk to a network, where it can do things that are going to take a while to come back, and kind of sandbox those things into a place where you expect them, instead of have them sprinkled all over your program. CHRIS: I definitely feel that uncanny valley of trying to bring FP -- functional programming -- things back into JavaScript when it comes to pattern matching. That's something that in Elm or Elixir or any number of more functional languages. Pattern matching enables a lot of these higher level patterns that don't always translate super great back to JavaScript land. JAMISON: Yeah, the uncanny valley is a great way to put it. There are a lot of things that you can do that will lead to better JavaScript. But you always have to take the environment that you're working in into consideration. There are just some things you can't do or some things that are going to be more pain than they're worth to do. On the other hand, it is kind of nice to just type console.log wherever you want or type like '$.getJSON' or whatever. The added security that Elm brings comes at a cost of locking you down a little bit and that can be a little frustrating to people sometimes. But I think the payoff is worth it. ALEX: A side story. About six months ago, I tried to get into the Haskell programming book. That's currently being worked on. That's because I want to learn some functional programming lessons, maybe bring them back into my JavaScript, or just learn something new. It's useful to learn a new language and bring it back to your work. Of this 1300 page book, I got just past Chapter 2 and I was in a Haskell book club like everybody held each other accountable to finish this book. I did not make it. I could not figure out how to bring any of these lessons back into my code which is what I wanted to do here. Elm takes that functional programming concept and says, "We're applying it to UI right away." There's no, "How do I apply this? How do I side step this?" No, you're doing it immediately. Really, you're getting me excited to jump back into this tutorial and learn it and check out the community, just to be able to bring this back to my day to day and bring those lessons and do it. JAMISON: Yeah, the first time I tried to learn Haskell, I learned that I could sort an array of integers in memory and that was it. That was as far as my Haskell skills took me so I definitely feel you there. In Haskell, they'll tell you it's a research language so they have a lot of reasons why it kind of works the way it does and learning it takes the pathway it does. Elm is definitely not a research language. It's trying to be incredibly pragmatic so you build UIs. In the guide, that's how they teach you the language. It's the stuff you normally build. Thank you for bringing that up. I think, it's a thing that they focus on. I'm glad you picked it out. ALEX: Yeah, at the learning curve is the syntax but you're still solving those same problems. If you're coming from UI, you already have that context. That is probably the majority of the hard work -- it's solving problems that are meaningful to you. JAMISON: Yeah, for me the syntax, I had learned enough Haskell that the syntax wasn't hard -- how to make HTTP requests and do site-affecting things like that. It was the hang up for me but Elm, there is a way to do it and they show you and that's how you do everything and it all works the same way and it's fairly easy to understand. I don't want to call it easy because that makes people that struggle to feel that but they put a lot of work into making that both robust so it won't break your program and also learnable. CHRIS: One thing I would love to mention about the syntax, I have learned a number of languages, I guess and the Elm syntax was definitely one that threw me the most and it put me off for, I guess it wasn't so much just the syntax, it was the syntax combined with how people do things that I would call more like style choices. JAMISON: The formatting? CHRIS: Yeah, Elm formats things in weird ways. Except that there is a tool called 'elm-format'. Once I've discovered that it has a really great editor integration for a lot of editors, it effectively remove that problem because I discovered that I can essentially write garbage basically in my editor and I can say that anything will make it look beautiful. It's fantastic. It removes such a big barrier for me when I was trying to learn it. JAMISON: Yeah, elm-format, there were some great debates about it while it was being created but now that it exists, it's awesome. Speaking a little bit more of tooling, Elm comes out with new releases of the language with some backwards and compatible changes. But along with that, they release a tool to upgrade your Elm code automatically. It's not perfect and it won't run on 100%. It won't fix everything but with most projects, it fixes everything. Again, the benefit of having such a strict language is there's tools that will just upgrade all your stuff for you. That's pretty awesome. It lowers the cost of evolving the language because they can keep adding new things and changing things without just leaving the community in the dust like we've seen in some other stuff. That's kind of an Ember-ish thing, I guess. Ember has the whole stability... What is it? Something without stagnation? Stability without stagnation? CHRIS: Stability without stagnation. JAMISON: Where you just get all these free upgrades that are really easy to opt into and Elm has that same philosophy. ALEX: What made you decide to check out Elm, to check out this community? Do you like to jump into new languages, new communities, and poke around and see what sticks? Or is there something that attracted you to Elm in particular. JAMISON: Yes to both of those. I do poke around in a lot of new languages. I have a good friend, Sean Hess who's really into functional programming and he's a Haskell true believer. I am not but he is, so he teaches me stuff by Haskell. I think, he told me about it. I might be misremembering though. It might have been just some random blogpost or podcast somebody did a few years ago. But I was already excited about new languages and functional programming and I had tried to learn Haskell and bounced off so the idea of a functional programming language that takes some good ideas from Haskell, that runs in the browser that's new. It was like all the shiny things that I look for altogether in one thing. I tried it and I liked it. I, also was really impressed by Evan Czaplicki, He's the creator of Elm. His philosophy around creating a language and the goals he wanted to accomplish with it. There's a really good talk he gave and called 'Let's be mainstream' which talks about some of the stuff we talked about around if functional programming is pure statically-typed functional programming is so amazing and it has all these people that love it and swear it's the only way to write software, why no one does it? Why the number of people use it is so small? His thesis is basically because the languages that do this are kind of user hostile so he's trying to make it a user friendly, the one that takes all those ideas. I just really liked that philosophy. CHRIS: I want to go back to something that you mentioned a little bit ago and that was data modeling because that is definitely something that I noticed being extremely helpful, any time I'm using a statically-typed language. It is very much something that I brought with me back to JavaScript. But I was wondering, Maybe you could talk a little bit more in depth about what data modeling really means in terms of Elm, the type system, the record type, and that kind of stuff. JAMISON: Yeah, if you've worked with statically-typed languages like Java or C++ or something, you might have an idea of things like classes as a way to model data where you create a class and you say it has all these fields on it. I think, in the Elm type system, I'm going to say it's a lot better than those languages because it has a lot less ceremony and it is a lot more powerful. Elm has type inference which means you don't have to declare the type of everything. It can just figure it out from a lot of places. That's the thing that makes your code a lot friendlier to write. To model data in Elm, there are two main ways to do that. One is with these record types that you mentioned, Chris. You basically declare an object that has a certain shape like I'll make a type called 'user' and it has a user ID and a hash password and... I don't know, a list of my favorite cats or whatever. Then you can just refer to that user type in function arguments or in return types or anything like that. In Elm, because you created that type, it knows that these are all the fields it has. If you try to access a field that's not on there, it'll yell at you because you're doing something that won't work. Because you have to think through all of the different fields that are on your types, it forces you to do a little bit more. It's kind of like the other side of TDD instead of writing test first. You have to think about your data first. You could call it type-driven development, I guess. CHRIS: That's awesome. JAMISON: In my experience, that's helpful. In the same way, TDD is, right? It helps you to do a little bit of design first. Think about how you're going to interact with the program in some way. Instead of writing tests, you're thinking what data do I need here. They also have these things that you could call them -- there are a bunch of different names for them: algebraic data types, I guess. Some people call them tagged unions. They're kind of like enums where you say this type can take any of these finite list of values. But instead of an enum being like an integer, like it is in some languages with a fancy name wrapped around it, the enum types can contain other value. You can say... what's a good example for this? You could say a user is either an authenticated user with a user record inside it or an unauthenticated user. Then when you're using that type in your program, you check, "Is this user type the authenticated user?" Then, if so it has this user field inside of it that you can pluck out and use. Or, "Is it an unauthenticated user?" Those two different things, the super enums, the algebraic data types plus the record types are really powerful for modeling what data looks like in the real world. I haven't run into that many issues where it's been hard to do something I want to do with just those two concepts. Type systems are hard to explain over the air but hopefully, that helped a little bit. ALEX: I thought that was great. CHRIS: I think a good example of the algebraic data type thing is looking at messages in Elm versus actions in Redux. If our listeners are familiar with those, they are very, very, very similar at a high level. But in Redux, you just have string then you do a switch statement or something and you match on some strings. You hope that you synced everything up correctly. JAMISON: Yeah, you say, "This action has a message and then has a payload that looks like this." See if it match against the message and then hope that the payload somebody sent actually looks like you expect it to look. CHRIS: Yeah, whereas in Elm, you can actually say, "My message type is a union of all of these different things," and now, Elm knows exactly what you're saying and you can't accidentally send the wrong payload to the wrong update function or something. It's one of the cases where I found that there's a very, very clear similarity in JavaScript and it highlights, I think a lot of the nice features that Elm brings to that equation. JAMISON: Yeah and there's even more strictness around that, like you have to handle every message type in Elm. So if you say, "This function takes in a message and does something with it," and then you check against what kind of message it is, you have to check every case or Elm won't compile because they don't want you to just blindly miss something, I guess. But in Redux, you could just happily forget a thing in your case statement and then you send a message and it doesn't do anything and then you have to kind of trace through it and debug why that's happening. There's just more helpful stability stuff built in. CHRIS: Cool. I am so incredibly happy with how this podcast went. I'm just excited to start coding and start getting into Elm. I think people and developers maybe at an inflection point with JavaScript and just going and checking out something else that they can immediately apply back to their day to day. I think, it's so incredibly valuable and something that I'm going to be looking to explore very certain. JAMISON: The value pitch is pretty strong because everyone that's written JavaScript has just written code that breaks when things get passed around that they don't expect. I do that all the time and Elm makes that impossible. You can break it in other ways but you just eliminate this class of errors that plagues your existence in JavaScript. If you want to experience that life, check out Elm. It's got a lot of other good things too but just writing code that does not crashes is a pretty strong pitch, I think. ALEX: Jamison, are there any resources that you might recommend for someone who wants to get started with Elm? JAMISON: Somebody mentioned the guide a few times. Everyone says that about every language, check out the official tutorial or whatever, and they have wildly varying quality. The Elm guide is the thing that worked a ton on. It's pretty good, I think and geared towards people that have no knowledge of Elm, no knowledge of functional programming stuff. That's a Guide.Elm-lang.org. Then there's a Slack channel. If you just go to Elm-lang.org, it will have links to the Slack channel and there are lots of helpful friendly people there. I think those are the two best resources because with those, you can find all the other stuff. CHRIS: There's also another one that I really like to mention which is the elm tutorial. I think, it's Elm-tutorial.org. I found it to be a really great compliment to the official Elm Guide. I think it walks through a little more in building a full app where the Elm Guide kind of touches on a bunch of different related topics. But they're not necessarily one narrative. The Elm tutorial did a really good job of tying all that together for me. JAMISON: Yeah and this is been around for a long time and has kept it up through the evolution of the language. This is good stuff. ALEX: Jamison, thank you for coming on the Frontside Podcast. We really appreciated talking to you. JAMISON: Thanks for having me. ALEX: If you love Jamison's voice, you should check out his React Conf talk from 2016 also about Elm. It's a wonderful talk. Go check that out as well. JAMISON: Thank you. Can I pitch my other stuff too? Is that kosher? ALEX: You can absolutely pitch it. CHRIS: Soft skills engineering! JAMISON: Yeah, I do a podcast called Soft Skills Engineering with my friend Dave Smith where we talk about all of the non-technical stuff in writing code. It's like you [inaudible], you can submit questions, and we answer them. If you're interested in talking about building software together, you should talk to the Frontside first. But after that, you can find me at Fivestack.computer. That's where my consultancy lives. Consults is maybe a strong way of describing it. That's like saying the three toddlers standing on top of each other in a trench coat is like an adult. But if you want to work together, then check that out. ALEX: Great. All right. That wraps it up for us. Thank you very much for listening and we'll talk to you next week.

URL: https://www.facebook.com/chrisoneofficialMegamix by: Chris OneYear: 2012  01.Mauro Picotto - Proximus    02.Alice Deejay - Better Off Alone    03.4 Strings - Take Me Away    04.Dee Dee - Forever (Ian Van Dahl Remix)    05.A.I.D.A - Merit    06.Mr. Philips - 7th Day (CJ Stone Remix)    07.Oceanlab - Clear Blue Water (Ferry Corsten Remix)    08.4 Strings - Fly Away    09.Veracocha - Carte Blanche    10.ATB - In Love With The DJ    11.Three Drives - Greece 2000    12.Ayla - Ayla (Veracocha Remix)    13.The Quest - C Sharp    14.Kaycee - Millenium Stringz15.Aven - All I Wanna Do (Ferry Corsten Remix)    16.The Thrillseekers ft. Sheryl Deane - Synaesthesia (Paul Van Dyk Dub Mix)17.Delerium - Silence (DJ Tiesto in Search of Sunrise Remix)18.Cygnus X - Superstring (Rank 1 Remix)19.Push - Strange World (2000 Remake)20.DJ Jurgen - Higher & Higher (Vocal Mix)21.DJ Quicksilver - Planet Love22.Ian Van Dahl - Try23.DJ Shog - This Is My Sound24.Darude - Sandstorm25.Barthezz - On The Move26.Driftwood - Freeloader27.Sash! - Ecuador28.666 - Paradox29.R.O.O.S - Instant Moments30.Jordan & Baker - Explode31.Svenson & Gielen - Twisted32.Kai Tracid - 4 Just 1 Day (Energy Mix)33.Brooklyn Bounce - Crazy34.Megara vs DJ Lee - Full Intention35.DJ Dean - Play It Hard36.Spacefrog - Follow Me 2002 (Pulsedriver vs Rocco Remix)37.DJ Lee - Tomorrow38.Ferry Corsten - Punk (Cosmic Gate Remix)39.Jochen Miller - Vanity40.Angel One - Hold me Tonight (Hennes & Cold Remix)41.Warp Brothers - Phat Bass (Phatt Mix)42.Pep 'n Up - Time & Space (Warp Brothers Remix)43.Yakooza - Lovin' U (Reuter & Schleis Remix)44.Ron Van Den Beuken - Timeless (Remix)45.DJ Dean - Kick Da Bass (Ampire Remix)46.Ruff Stuff - Warning47.DJ Scot Project - F (Future Is Now)  http://archive.org/download/ChrisOneClassicTranceMix/Chris%20One%20-%20Classic%20Trance%20Mix.mp3

Episode 133: The Right Environment When you're directing a show, it's important to specify environment. Where does the play take place? How do the characters react to that environment? It's also important to establish environment in your drama classroom. In this podcast teacher Chris Evans talks about about both worlds - the world of the play and the world of the drama classroom. What environment do you create? Show Notes Chicken Road Episode Transcript Welcome to TFP – The Theatrefolk Podcast – the place to be for Drama teachers, Drama students, and theatre educators everywhere. I'm Lindsay Price, resident playwright for Theatrefolk. Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for listening. Welcome to Episode 133! You can find any links for this episode at the show notes – theatrefolk.com/133. When you're directing a show, it's really important – as opposed to only sort of important – to specify environment. Where does the play take place? How do the characters react to their environment? It's especially important if you're dealing with a less than realistic play. If you've got a world or a script that doesn't establish a place, you need to define that not – not only for your audience but for your actors. The more your actors know where they are, even if what they're saying might not make sense, the more grounded they're going to be and the more the audience will be able to connect. It's also important to establish environment in your classroom. Students are so aware of their surroundings and they will react accordingly. You know this; you've seen it time and time again. So, what environment do you create in the classroom and onstage? We're going to hear how teacher Chris Evans answers this specific question. LINDSAY: Okay. So, here I am today and I am talking Teacher Chris Evans. Hello, Chris! CHRIS: Hello, hello, hello! LINDSAY: Tell everyone where in the world you are. CHRIS: We are in Great Falls, Montana. We're about 90 miles north of the capital of Montana, Helena. LINDSAY: I have to say, Montana is one of the states I have never been to. CHRIS: Well, consider this an invite. LINDSAY: Awesome. Okay! We're kind of talking about director's vision today and just how you've got to go from taking a piece of paper and turning it into a show. You recently directed my play, Chicken Road, and the reason that I asked Chris to come on today was because I was really taken by the pictures that you sent me about the production. I'll put a link to Chicken Road down in the show notes, but it's not a traditional script, right? CHRIS: Right. Absolutely! LINDSAY: The characters don't have names and yet you seem to put a pretty identifiable stamp on it with your production. CHRIS: One of the things that I first approached Chicken Road with was, “Where am I going to put this play?” LINDSAY: Right. CHRIS: And one of the things that I preach in my classes is place is so important – environment is so important. It affects everything we do. LINDSAY: Yes, particularly with theatre, it's a visual, isn't it? CHRIS: Absolutely. And so, my thought was (1) the play struck such an emotional chord with me that my first thought is, “What if we put this play at the site where, you know, this young man passed away?” LINDSAY: Right. CHRIS: What if these students are gathering at a vigil at the side of the road where this young man took his life? My thought was that was (1) it's a very, very, very specific environment. It's going to create… the environment itself is going to create emotions and I'll tell you why in just a sec; (2) visually, it was very striking. Unfortunately, last year, about this time, we had one of our students at C.M. Russell High School passed away in an auto accident and the vigils were just absolutely heartbreaking – the students gathering at vigils, the emotion that was on their faces. What I wanted to do was create this very, very distinct,

This is a monthly World Of Hardstyle podcast by Hardnews and Lip DJ! Do not forget to like and follow us on the social media channels. Hardnews Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/HardNewsNL…54611660?fref=ts Lip DJ Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Lip-DJ/137902189619332 Hardnews Twitter: twitter.com/HardNewsNL Lip DJ Twitter: twitter.com/LipDJ Tracklist: 01. Outlander - Elements (Bassleader 2013 Anthem) 02. Gunz For Hire - Gangsters Don't Dance (Noisecontrollers Remix) 03. Scope DJ - A New Beginning (Rebirth 2013 Anthem) 04. Audiotricz - It Could Be 05. Energyzed - TBA 06. Coone - Colors Of Life (Emporium 2013 Anthem) 07. Frontliner - Lose The Style (Live Edit) 08. Atmozfears & S-Dee - Our Escape 09. Crypsis - Break Down Low 10. Atmozfears - Bella Nova 11. The Vision - The Anarchy In Me 12. Zatox & The R3belz - Good & Evil 13. Jack Overdose - Ocatvius Augustus (Zany Remix) 14. Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike - Wakanda (Zatox Remix) 15. Prefix & Density - Surprise 16. Bass Modulators - I Want Your Love 17. Slim Shore & Focuz - Wauw 18. Chain Reaction - Bassleader Anthem 2013 19. Frequencerz & Zany - Quakers 20. Zenith vs Mauro Picotto - I'm Your Proximus DJ (Zatox Remix) 21. B-Front & Adaro - Worth Fighting For 22. Jack Of Sound & Frequencerz - STFU 23. Atmozfears - Up Top 24. Kronos - Pandemonio 25. Gunz For Hire - The Massacre 26. Caine - Requital 27. Chris One & The Machine - Different Kind Of Therapy (Different Mix) 28. B-Front & Frequencerz - Fatality 29. Digital Punk & Crypsis - Radiant 30. The Geminizers - Out Of Control

Tatanka DJ set @ Hypnosis Opening Party - Brescia Italy 20th Oct. 2012. Next Event: 31st December 2012 @ Neverland Music Festival - Varese Italy - LIKE US ON FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/Hypnosis.Authentic.Techno PARTY VIDEOS: www.youtube.com/hypnosisevents More info WWW.HYP.IT info@HYP.IT TRACKLIST: 01. ZATOX & TATANKA – LOOP & THINGS 02. TATANKA & ZATOX – GANGSTA 03. BRENNAN HEART & WILDSTYLEZ – LOSE MY MIND 04. FRONTLINER – KEEP IT UP 05. ZANY - MY BEAT 06. TATANKA – ITALIA 07. FREQUENCERZ – BURNING 08. TATANKA – TOKYO 09. TATANKA – ARABIKA 10. TATANKA – LET’S ROCK (WILDSTYLEZ REMIX) 11. DJ DURO – COCAINE MOTHERFUCKERS (REMIX) 12. DIGITAL PUNK & ADARO – EVERYDAY 13. ZAZAFRONT - DIKKE VETTE BASPLAAT 14. ZATOX – MY LIFE 15. OMEGATYPEZ - 4 THE CLUB 16. WILD MOTHERFUCKERS – FUCK IT UP 17. COONE & TECHNOBOY - NUSTYLE CRAP (TBY GOES CRAZY MIX) 18. TAT & ZAT - THE MJ SYNDROME 19. ATOM - BELIVE 20. ZANY – WORLD BELONGS TO YOU 21. RAN-D & DIGITAL PUNK – SURVIVORS 22. CHRIS ONE – SIN CITY 23. FREQUENCERZ - BITCH 24. TATANKA - AFRIKA 25. BASS MODULATORS - NRGZIER (2012 EDIT) 26. JDX & SARAH MARIA - LIVE THE MOMENT 27. HARDWELL - SPACEMAN (HEADHUNTERZ REMIX) 28. TATANKA - FEEL IT

01. Technoboy & Activator – Steam Train 02. DJ Y.O.Z – Just Can’t Help It 03. Sylenth & Glitch – Music In You (2012 Remix) 04. Coone – Dedication 05. Scope DJ – Spark Of Life 06. B-Twinz – Love Things 07. Nicky Romero – Toulouse (Headhunterz Remix) 08. Code Black – Brighter Day 09. D-Mon – Unite 10. Boozed Panderz vs. Raw Manners - Deliverance 11. Chris One – Drug Muzik 12. Noisecontrollers – Sludge 13. Bass Modulators – Leave The World 14. Headhunterz Feat Malukah - Reignite

Jack of Sound 1. Jack of Sound - Youíre Next 2. Wildstylez - Delay Distortion 3. The Pitcher - Fuck Hardstyle 4. Alphaverb - The Otherside 5. The KGBís - Channel KGB (TNT Remix) 6. Slim Shore - A.N.S.A.R.A.T. 7. Jack of Sound - A Ghost Story 8. Zany - Volt (Jack of Sound Psychedelic Anticlimax mash-up) 9. Zany & Brennan Heart - Bang the Bass 10. K-Traxx - Straight On (Tuneboy Wackie Remix) 11. A-Lusion - Veritas (Zany Remix) 12. Alphaverb & Intractable One - Destination Nowhere 13. Noisecontrollers & Psyko Punkz - Bass Mechanics 14. Donkey Rollers - Innocent 15. Titan - Nightmare 16. Noisecontrollers - Surge of Power 17. Zatox - Poltergeist 18. Zany & DV8 - Wilde Gullie Front 2 Back?! (Jack of Sound Mash-Up) Chris One 19. Kodex - Nucleic Acid 20. Crypsis & Thera - Pulling the Trigger 21. Zany & Duro - Our Power 22. Solutio - Devastator 23. Blademasterz - Materblade (Chris One Edit) 24. Chris One - Recruit 25. Crypsis - The Demand 26. Sasha F- Sacrifice 27. Degos & Re-Done - Warrior 28. Chris One vs Sasha F - Drop 2 Your Knees 29. B-Front - Darkside 30. Chris One - Killshot 31. The Beholder & Digital Punk - A Dark Tomorrow 32. Chris One - Psycho 33. Chris One - Loudness DJ Tool The Reverse Bass of the Week 34. Duro - Just Begun (Duroíz Remake) The Machine 35. Zatox - Wishmaster 36. The Machine - State of Your Mind 37. Public Domain - Atomatic Audio Overload (The Machine remix) 38. Slim Shore & B-Front - Chemical 39. Alphaverb & The Machine - Chemistry of Sound 40. The Machine - Renaissance 41. The R3bels - Bionicle 42. Sasha F - Artifical Reality 43. The Machine - Explorers of the Mind 44. The Machine - Vicious Tones (First Mix) 45. Gravity - Truth Within 46. Alphaverb - Stimulate Your Curiosity 47. TNT - Pulsation 48. Crypsis & Chain Reaction - Furious 49. The Machine - Times Like These