356 Managing Brand Crises: 8 Principles to Rebuild Trust and Resilience with Shailendra Pratap Jain & Shalini Sarin Jain | Partnering Leadership Global Thought Leader

***DISCLAIMER: Please note that the following AI-generated transcript may not be 100% accurate and could contain misspellings or errors.***

[00:00:00] Mahan Tavakoli: Shelley Jane and Shalini Jane, welcome to Partnering Leadership. I am thrilled to have you in this conversation with me.

[00:00:05] Shailendra: Thank you for having us, Mohan. We are excitedly looking forward to this chat.

[00:00:10] Mahan Tavakoli: I can't wait to learn more from both of you on managing brand transgressions, how we can do it well, and the eight principles that you share on transforming your brand. But we'd love to know a little bit more.

about each one of you before we get there. Shalini, you first. Whereabouts did you grow up and how did your upbringing impact the kind of person you've become? 

[00:00:32] Shalini Jain: I'm so delighted to be here. My name means serenity. And if my mother and daughter are to be believed, I don't live up to my name. I grew up in India. And I'm a first generation immigrant to the United States. I have been married to my co author for 32 years. And it's such a delight to be here and to be able to share our story and also about our book.

[00:00:58] Mahan Tavakoli: Shelly, how about yourself?

[00:01:00] Shailendra: Thank you Mahan for having us on this podcast, really excitedly looking forward to our conversation. So I was also born in India. And I moved to the U S in 1990 to do a PhD. I had a large family with one brother and three sisters. Always jostling for resources and growing up with stereotypes, which we had to break to become better human beings and those kinds of, touch points in my journey, which are probably reflected in subtle and not very subtle ways in the book in some form or the You share the. Eight principles to transform your brand.  How can. Leaders do the right thing when there are brand transgressions. 

[00:01:44] Shalini Jain: Just as an explanation we are often asked, what do we mean by brand transgression? Companies invest a lot of time and resources. in building their brand and their relationship with customers. And there is a relationship of trust that is built between customers. And when that is explicitly or implicitly violated in some form, so while doing the right thing seems to be a really obvious thing, actually our research of 50 years of case studies in business, we found only a few examples of that happening.

 The one very famous example, which is considered a gold standard, was the case of Tylenol. Now, many people may not recall it because it happened in the 1980s. It was in Chicago and some miscreant. opened the bottles and replaced some Tylenol capsules with cyanide capsules and seven people died. And the company found out just as the story broke as the rest of the world did. So at that time, of course, there was no social media, but this was very serious. Seven people had died. And so as the CEO at that time, James Burke and his And we can see that when his team were discussing the action plan, he took the position, how can we save the customer? And second, how can we save our brand? right there was doing the right thing and it was a very unusual reaction because normally what brands tend to worry about is how do we protect the brand? And I, at that time, also several of his peers or his, C suite team. Seem to think it was an overreaction or perhaps not a good route to take till they were more certain about what exactly happened, but he chose that route and then not only did he take that route, he followed it up with concrete deliberate action. So what are some of the things he did? At that time, again, very unusual, he went on national television, multiple appearances, asking customers not to buy Tylenol till they got to the bottom of the issue. Again, it's very unusual this kind of Then there was a 800 hotline where real human beings were responding to consumer concerns or questions.

This was 24 seven. There were daily updates on what was happening. They worked transparently with the regulators. invited them in to examine their entire manufacturing and supply chain to identify what could potentially be the problem. And there was a second incident in California. And at that time, James Burke took the call to stop to pull off all Tylenol from the shelves and to stop advertising completely.

And offering to refund the money for anybody who wanted to return that. I don't So if you just stop and think for a minute, we hear of transgressions every day, big and small. But this was very exceptional stance of doing the right And we're not claiming that Johnson has always done the right  but this is an exceptional position to take.

[00:05:45] Mahan Tavakoli: , it is interesting that brand transgressions are so poorly handled that I know title and all was beautifully handled, but it is one of the few examples where it was handled so well that we have to go back to that.

But what I wonder is, are there capabilities that teams and leaders can develop ahead of time?

[00:06:08] Shailendra: This is a difficult question. So just to, first of all, talk a little bit more about doing the right thing. Shalini captured the case really well. So what we are proposing in the book is doing the right thing means first and foremost, address the pain and the hurt of the victims.

Before you start thinking of the brand and the shareholder value and the stock price and the market share, which are important considerations, we are not dissing that we are not minimizing because a company needs to make profit, to survive, to be competitive, to be able to repay its debt of gratitude to its investors.

All those are important considerations, but Tylenol's example taught us and many people in the world that first start with understanding what are the victims Now, coming back specifically to your question, can companies be prepared to have some kind of a roadmap or a framework? Thus far, we don't know if companies have such a framework to our knowledge. And the reason why we cite close to 25, 30 examples, case studies in the book is because we could not find a single company with a single set of principles or dictum, which says, if you transgress, do X, Y, and Z, which is why we thought this book will be of some value to some corporations.

who are willing to read it. Having said that we do capture some of the principles, Mahan, which might touch upon the answer to your question. So if you like, take the example of Boeing, for instance, a hundred and 506 year old corporation considered absolutely, an amazing organization, which had such wonderful things to contribute to the planet and outside of the planet.

And two accidents, two aircraft crashes have brought the company under such I think undesirable scrutiny, but necessary, undesirable, but necessary. And I think they forgot the first principle, which is the first thing that the ex CEO did was blame the pilots. of those aircraft and the airlines and said they did not follow protocol.

So when we read that, even though we hadn't started writing the book at that time, both Shalini and I said, Oh my God, how did he make that conclusion? That is such an immature attribution. So clearly there is a scope for training in this space. There is a scope, like there are in, in more non business environments Marines and Army and Navy, they teach them how to handle crises of the worst kind, how to respond to crisis, how to prepare for crises.

I'm not sure if businesses have such a framework and and I think my two cents. The reason is because of the overarching emphasis on the profit maximizing principle. I think that is what we have learned ever since the famous quote by Milton Friedman that, it's all profit. That's what the social responsibility of the company is.

And that has become our, guideline that has become our torch. easy to follow because there is a metric. which is the bottom line and all computations lead to that metric. If you don't do well there, you need to, do something different. If you're doing well, they're great. But handling transgressions, handling crisis, it is gray area of sorts.

There is no clear roadmap there as yet. And it will require some, if I may use this word with due respect, some disabusing of the manner in which we approach businesses.

[00:09:45] Mahan Tavakoli: There's an element of that humanity that you talk about that needs to be put back in. Now, one of the challenges that a lot of times I've seen organizations have, I work with some political teams and political leaders , is a combination of legal liabilities for some. And on the political side is, if you admit to the smallest thing, then. That comes back at you in the future.

[00:10:12] Shalini Jain: So going back to the example of Tylenol I'm sure the legal council also had similar concerns, right? But I think doing the right thing involves taking that chance. First of all, they didn't know what happened, right? So they couldn't say definitively, one way or the other, that it is our fault or it isn't our fault. so they were transparent and said, let's check it out. And I think that stands to reason. Led consumers and society to view Tylenol as the victim rather than the perpetrator because of their humanity, because of doing the right thing. And then, because they took that position and they were so transparent, the regulators found no wrongdoing.

Anywhere within the Tylenol manufacturing process, a new law was passed about tampering resistant packaging, and Tylenol was the first to come up with that within two weeks, which is again something new. is routine in our daily life today. So not only were they doing the right thing, they also took corrective action so that this would never happen again, right?

So they designed this tamper resisting packaging, which was which probably cost them a lot of money because it would have to involve changing their manufacturing processes. So in and they lost their, I think their market share was 37 percent and it dropped to 7 percent and people said no one would ever put a Tylenol in their mouth, no, it was just too risky. But by the end of it all, over a certain period of time, it went back to 40%. So they were able to appease shareholders as well. 

[00:12:15] Mahan Tavakoli: One of the things I wonder as we reflect on this is the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world, when they come in front of Congress and others, have gotten media training and practiced the same questions over and over again. 

Why is it that all the training, all the rehearsals, everything is guiding, , the CEOs to do the opposite?

[00:12:42] Shailendra: So I think . You do need some kind of an inner DNA, which says I have to respond in a manner, which is really good for the victims to begin with. And beside cases where companies when they forgot when they lost sight of that.

Some of them basically went bankrupt. And there is a case of Dalkin Shield, which is another old case. It was an intrauterine device to prevent births. And the first such device was really damaging to the woman's body. And they had to face ultimately 12, 000 lawsuits. And the book covers in great detail how desperately the company tried to stall and stonewall any accusation.

And they had to ultimately shut down to cut a long story short. In the process, there was a lot of pain that victims had to undergo restitution, I think, for many of them never came. So there is this one side is we cite cases that you are so worried about the legal issue, and you're constantly trying to hush it.

and using, your PR skills and training to deflect blame or to spin the story, that is your choice. And it's possible you might get away with it. It's possible, so to speak. However, in today's day and age, we make a case that we call today's day and age as an age of digital democracy. And we talk about information traveling at warp So The good news is that the world is becoming much more empowered, much better informed, literally at the tip of our fingers. And that presumably is that invisible hand, which will enable companies to realize that opacity is not a good option. in our understanding. Take the case of Volkswagen 2019 emissions cheating scandal.

The CEO stonewalled the acquisition. Ultimately, it was found that he knew and it was volitional. Then they installed the emissions cheating device. And right now, I think Volkswagen is poorer by almost 40 billion. And is He's MIA. He's under, criminal prosecution and some countries want him for all kinds of wrongdoing. Boeing is also under the process, facing the possibility of criminal prosecution. So in 2024, these gargantuan and amazing corporations like Boeing and Volkswagen, when they are facing such situations, presumably this is a sobering moment to realize that all your PR training skills are nice.

You need those PR training skills, but there are some situations when you're in a jam, you really need to think differently. And I also believe that there is this clinical cost benefit analysis that companies undertake when they're looking at the pros and cons of being transparent. Of saying, oops, we made a mistake and so on.

So I'll just close with a short example, Mahan. In April, I think it was April and I stand corrected if I get the timing wrong. Apple released an ad for iPad and it was released, I think, on social media on YouTube. And it showed some traditional art objects and creative pursuits like sculptures and paintings and music and guitars horns.

They are being crushed by an industrial machine. You probably are aware of that. And at the end of that dramatic crushing emerges an iPad and the tagline is the thinnest iPad ever or something to that effect. It was a very dramatic piece of communication and the backlash was immediate, equally dramatic where the creative community globally said, this is horrible.

You're telling us that iPad will take over. Now, the context is that artificial intelligence is already breathing down our neck, right? For many people, it's doomsday in some way. And the Screenplay Writers Association in Hollywood went on a strike for salary reasons and AI related concerns and so on.

In that context, you see this ad, you can understand why the creative fraternity had such a strong reaction. Now, this is what Apple did, which we think was really terrific. Within a day, they apologized. We are not saying every firm should apologize, but they took responsibility for their action.

They did not deflect. They did not say, Oh, this was done by a trainee copywriter or something of that sort. They withdrew the advertisement and they said, we will never release it on TV again. There is this addressing the victim's hurt instantaneously, taking responsibility, being transparent. you think clinically, really clinically in the sense from an economic viewpoint, we think it was a terrific move because if they had pushed back and they had resisted, and they had said, Oh, come on, get a life.

This is just an ad. Why are you going all crazy? La. Maybe some people would have relented and said, okay, let it go. But they lost. They did not lose narrative in the process. If they had pushed back and debated, it could have become a monster of a debate. And who knows where that could have taken the brand and this whole notion of AI and So, I think even from a Bottom line perspective, as we mentioned in the book, it is a good idea to think transparently, communicate transparently, address the victim's pain first and foremost. to round off this in the last, that last principle we talk about is brand authenticity. And that is a long term solution.

It's part of the training module we think operations need to undergo, which is when you make a promise, you relentlessly pursue the goal of fulfilling that promise obsessively. Sometimes mistakes happen. It's all human to make mistakes. And I think senior executives, their incentive structure probably is driven, is designed in such a way that if mistakes happen, there could be serious penalties or something of that sort.

So we don't have an inside look into the C suite in terms of how they make decisions. But yeah, it's a complex situation. And yes, there are legal issues, but based on some examples that we mentioned, what we believe is that if you don't act transparently, sooner or later, the legal issue will balloon into something you didn't want or hope.

If you act transparently, there is a risk. But there is also a set of virtues that you might

[00:19:20] Mahan Tavakoli: Couldn't agree with you more, Shelly, and I love the term you use, that clinical analysis that people go through as opposed to connecting to the hurt and the empathy that it takes. That's why I mentioned to you early on also, I see this as a great framework for leaders of teams and organizations to also think about when There is a perceived transgression on their part by their team or organization in handling it.

So first, do the right thing. Take accountability. Act with lightning speed. Communicate transparently. Choose principles over profit. Treat each life with dignity. And then leadership sets the tone. Build that authenticity through it. So I see it as a great way for leaders to think about their own brand as well.

[00:20:16] Shailendra: I was an expert witness for a case, and the legal team that had hired me, The morning session was really challenging. The other lawyers were grilling me like crazy. And I didn't have any experience. I was green behind the ears. So I spoke to my legal team.

And I said, What should I do? What should I do? He said, Look, it's your reputation on the line. We can't tell you what to do. You have to figure it out. And that was a really nice thing for him to say. And so I said, okay, what is it that I believe in? Where is my heart? I have to say the truth. What I believe is the truth, rather than worry about this legal team is paying me.

So I have to do what they are asking me to do. So that kind of relieved me. It made me free. And yes, there is a personal brand here at completely. Absolutely. So again, the case studies we talk about in the book, the ex Boeing CEO, I think we don't even recall his name. The Volkswagen CEO is missing in action.

James Burke has become a legend for the actions that he took. So even your personal brand, , either helped with these principles or hurt if you challenge or don't follow 

[00:21:26] Mahan Tavakoli: Would love for you to share any thoughts whether middle management and organizations can play a role in this, or is this something that is purely the CEO and the senior leadership team of the organization?

[00:21:43] Shalini Jain: That's such an excellent question, Mahan. So in our research, we have found fairly consistently that it is the top level management that sends the tone of how middle and front level employees respond or behave or what action they take when a transgression happens. So the organizational culture and the norms that are set up on what to do.

And again, we have so many examples, Enron and of blatant fraud where management set the culture. So in our book, we talk about Fox news and the, while it is excellent in its ratings and it's generating a lot of, all the anchors were generating a lot of profit for the company.

So they were satisfying shareholders, but a very key stakeholder employees, particularly women decades, Of trauma and harassment decades, and it was it started with the CEO Roger Ailes, but it went down to all the top male executives and key anchors of the of the channel, right?

And the company did settlements. To prevent these getting public, so talk about a culture, like at no stage did anybody say, wait a minute, this isn't something that we believe in, this isn't the value we stand by, this is not respecting the dignity of each of our employees, which are several of the principles that we talk about, and this is not authentic, right?

Nobody did that till It was, it built up and built up and then just blew up in their And and it builds over years. It's not something that just happens on a whim. And we talked a little bit about the Taj Mumbai. So here is an unusual situation where the company or the corporation was not at fault, but they were a venue of a terrorist attack, right?

So the culture at the Taj the, that is honed in the employees through the extensive training is the customer is God. And we treat them as such. And in the spirit of doing the right thing, in the spirit of living up to this credo, a lot of the employees of the company gave their lives in protecting customers.

That is the ultimate form of, one would say this is above and beyond, not required, but they did it. So I think we believe, at least in our research, that leadership does set the tone. It's very difficult for middle level management to do anything of consequence unless the higher level is in agreement or concurs.

How would they go about doing it? Doing anything that was like, they couldn't make the choice to be transparent. They couldn't make the choice to, you talk about an apology, it's a simple thing, but it took Boeing two years to apologize to the victim's families, two years. So you use the word empathy, that's a fundamental requirement. If there's something that has happened that hurt your most valuable stakeholder, the consumer, why would you not apologize? 

[00:25:31] Mahan Tavakoli: Now, one of the things I wonder in putting principles over profits is how can CEOs and organizations balance that?

[00:25:41] Shailendra: So the balancing let me just share two examples, which in our book we transparently say, these are, the good brands that we want the world to follow. is Patagonia and one is Ben and Jerry's. So they're very different stories, but they have a common thread.

First of all, leadership is critical in both Patagonia was started by Mr. Shunard, and it came from his realization for, he had a mountaining, mountaineering hobby, and he wanted to create a product which had certain features. And then he realized if he created that product, it'll the earth. It'll actually, he'll have to, break rocks and stuff like that, which he did not want to do. So that was the start of his business, which led to Patagonia. And right from inception till recent PR press coverage, where he has said that when I die, I want all the profits to be donated to a sustainability fund.

That's one brand. So there is no balance here. There is a commitment. He's not trying to balance shareholder value with his principles. He's saying this is what I believe in, and this is what I'll do. I'm sure not many people are thrilled with his ideas, but he's very clear what he wants to do.

Ben and Jerry's Ice cream for crying out loud. Ice cream, a most hedonic product that you can think of on the planet other than jewelry and fancy hotels. They have created a social movement based on their respect for human dignity. So if any marginalized segment of society they feel is being marginalized, they get activist about it.

They really start acting up and they say no, they have to be respected. They name flavors to communicate their brand, and they are not really thinking about, oh, yeah, in the process of being who we are ignoring a significant chunk of humanity who hates us, right? So from the principle of segmentation, which we talk about in schools, yeah, it's a segmentation strategy.

They have chosen to be with people. Whatever you want to call them liberal or whatever, but they have made a choice. And if you were trying to balance, I think you will be potentially compromising on a lot of these principles. It is difficult to balance and you can't be everything to everybody.

And strategy is basically making choices. counter example is that of Budweiser, but had that. a logo, I think, of a trans person. And the moment there was backlash, they immediately withdrew. So I think they were trying to balance by not being so in people's faces. That's Bud's strategy. We felt disappointed when Shalini and I were thinking about it, that they're implicitly minimizing a certain segment of society, but that's their choice.

So it is difficult to balance. There's no doubt. And balancing may or may not be the right thing to do, depending on what your brand strategy is. If your brand strategy is, we want to be, we will try to be everything to everybody. Then your balancing question will be in your face all the time. You'll be walking on eggshells, trying to please different segments of society.

But if your brand strategy is, we are very clear who we are focused on, even if you're not. Mr. Shunard is not targeting sustainability conscious consumers. He's basically operating from his heart. And in the process, he has created a brand which is fitting with the specific segment of I don't think he had this idea that let me do this clean segmentation strategy and try to position my brand.

It just came from his heart. And it happened to find a sweet spot, which is not the right way to do strategy. I get it, but this is how these brands have evolved over time. Balancing is a good question to ask, but if you are struggling with balancing, maybe we need to think about where our heart

[00:29:42] Mahan Tavakoli: , I love the way you put it. And it's not Ben and Jerry's. Seeking a movement as a marketing strategy and it's not Patagonia seeking belief as a marketing or positioning strategy.

[00:29:56] Shailendra: So Boeing has hired a new CEO. His name is Kelly Ortberg. And we love what he's saying to press. We really love what he's saying. Two things that captured our attention and heart. One, he says, we'll go back to our roots of being a great engineering Two, we will be transparent. So this is really resonating with our book and with our principles and what we are hoping companies So yes, CEOs can really take to heart, the cultural change that is required. for an organization which is dealing with turbulence on the other hand, if the organization is not dealing with any turbulence at this point in time, I think the CEO in our framework should look into minimizing the possibility or at least have a framework which is in place.

And it doesn't come across as an incident where you are behaving like a deer in headlights. You don't know what 

[00:30:57] Shalini Jain: Just to build on that, actually, Boeing was under threat of a strike, and they just reached a deal where they've agreed to give employees a 25 percent hike. I don't know the math, and I don't know the, the how this will affect the balance sheet, which is already in a fair amount of trouble. But from an outside perspective, They are taking into account and treating another stakeholder with dignity and respect, which is employees.

And so that is a good move because without employee satisfaction and especially a company the size of Boeing cannot really make a the kind of turnaround it needs to make, right? So when you think about this from the outside that seems to be a positive direction. Another thing that they have decided is to make their next aircraft in Seattle.

Now, based on the research we have done, the move away from Seattle to Chicago and North Carolina actually in some way contributed to the decline of the engineering which was the safety focus of the company and the fact that they are coming back suggests this, that he's acting on his statement that they want to go back to their roots.

Of course there's the negative aspect. Apparently he flies in to Seattle on a private jet. And so the damage to the environment is being called out. So you'll see, because CEOs are such public figures, everything is under scrutiny. And so I think like maybe earlier CEOs could get away with whatever they wanted to do, not any longer.

And All the more reason for CEOs to, be aware that they are, not only the public, but the social media profile, and that every action of theirs is going to have some kind of impact.

[00:33:03] Mahan Tavakoli: That leadership action makes a huge difference. And as you say, the CEO's role is the most public, Now, one of the things that you both mentioned briefly both about the CEO and just the environment that we live in, where in part because of social media, all employees in an organization have an impact on the brand voice. Because some of the more minor transgressions, , has been with it. Employees and employee groups having a voice that is very different than the voice of the organization.

How can CEOs and executives handle that?

[00:33:44] Shailendra: I used to teach this case of an airline called Scandinavian Airline Systems. And the context is that SAS was in trouble for various reasons. And they hired a CEO called Jan Karlsson. J. A. N.

Young Carlson and some of the actions he took to turn the airline around was some of the actions included a mass training for his employees. And there was a legendary, the little red book that he circulated throughout the organization. This was before social media. So they created copies of the little red book where he transparently, honestly, with integrity, we are in trouble.

So he didn't sugarcoat it. He didn't say, Oh, things are fine. We will change. Everybody goes through ups and downs. He simply said, we are in trouble and we all need to work together to bring the airline out of this situation. So he communicated transparently with his employees. None of the employees was threatened by way of losing their jobs.

In that situation, as you can imagine, people are sitting, They are really worried because if there's a cost cutting initiative, many times the ax falls on the employees. So he assured them, you're not losing your jobs, but we are in trouble and we need to fight. And then there was a one week long training that he got the organization to undergo with some training trainers and consultants.

And that whole week was around crisis management and having one voice about the brand, the airline. So I thought it was really remarkable how empathetic he was towards his employees, how completely transparent and honest he was that look, we are all in it together. So let's fight together. in a very subtle way, he gave the stake to the employees.

You have as much a stake in it as me. And without calling them CEO, he basically gave them the designation of you are a CEO in your environment in your territory, in your space. So And there was a wonderful example where he also had a television in his office where he would monitor every flight's departure and arrival see that they were departing on time and arriving on time.

So he was obsessive about SaaS becoming a terrific airline in terms of punctuality. And one particular instance, he saw that the airline had the aircraft had not taken off for 15 minutes, seemingly called the pilot. And I said, what's going on? So he sent a signal throughout the airline. Now, the empowerment of the employee was reflected in one instance where the air, the aircraft was not ready to take off.

It was delayed. the flight attendant. took the decision to give all the passengers free food and free wine even in non business class settings. Something to that effect. And it was not permitted by the airline's policies, but the employee felt sufficiently empowered responsible to take that action. So I think there are two ways to manage organizations and leadership theories are out there. I'm not a leadership theorist. One is leadership by power, top down. The other one is empowering the employees. Shalini and I believe, and I may speak for her that we really need to empower the employees.

We really need to let them make decisions. And for that, you need training. You need a roadmap, and you need deep investment of the leader, emotional investment of the leader helping the organization achieve

[00:37:24] Mahan Tavakoli: That makes a huge difference. And I believe he might have had a, The book to that title also, Moments of Truth, Jan Carlson talking about every one of those moments and the impact they have. . Where can the audience find out more about you, follow your work, and the book as well? 

[00:37:44] Shalini Jain: So we have our website which is brandtransgressions. com. So all of that we add to the conversation on newer transgressions. They can reach us, they can order the book. So www. brandtransgressions. com.

[00:38:03] Mahan Tavakoli: We will put a link to the website, to your LinkedIn profiles, for the audience to find out more about you and follow you. Now, , as you're, Speaking to the audience, what is one thing you would challenge them to think about or do differently as it relates to your work with brand transgressions?

[00:38:25] Shalini Jain: I would say treat your customers as you would treat yourself.

[00:38:30] Shailendra: I would say the heart is what matters. We all have economic principles, which are very important. But if we balance it, the balance idea that you mentioned, if you're bringing the heart, it will make a

[00:38:45] Mahan Tavakoli: What beautiful parting words and both of your hearts come across both in this conversation and in your book, Managing Brand Transgressions, Eight Principles to Transform Your Brand. Thank you so much, Shelly and Shalini. Jane, so wonderful having both of you in Partnering Leadership.

[00:39:06] Shalini Jain: Thank you so much, Mahan. It was wonderful to be here.

[00:39:09] Shailendra: Thank you, Mahan. Really enjoyable conversation. , honestly we really felt connected. Thank you.