 This is an Inside Jury's Brain Call on Tuesday, May 7th, 2019. We are talking about humanizing or humane digital marketing. And Dino and I had a really interesting conversation when we first met just not that long ago. And I don't have a lot of setup for this call. I just want to say a couple of things and see where we all take it. Because I'm really interested in anybody's impressions about this and how it might feel to unfold humane marketing. What does that mean? So I'll see a couple things. Has everybody heard the term the stalker economy or surveillance capitalism? Mostly familiar? Yeah. So we're basically nostril deep in those things already. Those are not, I don't think those are descriptions of a terrifying future. I think those are actually app descriptions of the system we seem to have built already. And marketers in this market, in this reality are very often doing the stalking. So there are industries and sub industries that track our presence across websites and make sure we see the same ads that collect our data and sell it off and perfect it. And that do a whole series of things. You're probably mostly familiar with all the things that are happening behind the curtain in order to sort of train us to buy more stuff. But also in order to keep us from becoming an unruly mob. So if you look at China and their social credit system and the pervasive intensive surveillance that's happening there with including face recognition at street level and a whole series of things. So we're way deep into a journey that where the default setting is actually lots of surveillance, lots of loss of privacy, lots of invasion of privacy, etc. And I think we're, we might generally agree that this is not necessarily a good thing that's going on. So Dino and I in having this conversation open the question of, okay, great. So what the hell should digital marketers do? Like, if we're not going to collect up all that data and figure out what motivates you to click on more buy this boxes and to behave like opus the penguin from Bloom County watching late night. You think he's reading Bloom County? Where are they going? I don't know. Who knows. Anyway, so and that's probably a US reference, but I don't know what, you know, how about this indication for for opus the penguin was. But so the question that is, okay, so what does a humane digital marketer look like? What are their day to day actions? How does this work? You know, I have a couple of opening thoughts, but but I kind of wanted to stop and ask Dino to step in and maybe put a little bit of his own context here. So we know where he's speaking from and what what parts of his own experience resonate in the context we're setting for the call here and then go into some of the practical things that might be done. And maybe even before we do that, ask some of the rest of you who are interested to step into the conversation and add some color or some experiences of what this is like and what your feelings about it are. So let me pass the floor so to speak to Dino and see where we go. Okay, thanks Jerry for the introduction. Well, the main thing that they are two main things here to for us to discuss today. The first one is the trust, and the second one is the privacy, like, like you have mentioned and already briefed us shortly. So when it comes to the trust, digital marketers or better say, digital strategies are now in between two fires. One of those are the clients that have, you know, very little trust in the digital marketing agencies. Since there are a lot of agencies now growing up in this area in this space, and not a lot of them are doing good work. So when it comes to the work to the digital marketing part itself, I mean, the digital marketing agencies now can do more harm to the client than good if they are not doing things properly. On the other hand, the second fire are the client, the consumers, sorry, meaning people that buy online, people that are engaged with all of the ads, etc. So their trust or let's say lack of trust lies within all of the cookie policies, the tracking options, etc. Which also leads us to the second part of the privacy part because now you have a lot of customer intelligence software tools that are doing and creating the personalized offerings for the consumers, which is OK if you are fine with that. But if you haven't given any consent to it, somebody as well as you have said is talking to you. And on that note, you know, people are losing trust in everything digital what is going on. So after let's say about 10 years of hype of digital marketing, now we are in a space in which we first have to discuss the trust thing and then we can move things forward. The technology here is, you know, working well on one hand, but it's, you know, not working well on the other hand. Now European Union, of course, tried to do this with the GDPR regulations. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, just in a nutshell. Yeah, in a nutshell, for everything what you do as a consumer, the people that are selling you stuff, be offline or online, have to have your consent. Meaning you cannot send emails to anybody that does not give you their consent. The same thing is with online stores and with purchases. So the regulations are strict. Now the second version of GDPR will come soon. And, you know, things are moving a bit, but they are moving a bit slow or too slow. There is also a cookie technology that's getting more advanced every day. Since we are logged in from our devices, from our smartphones on Facebook, on Google, on what not. And, you know, they can track everything what we do practically, which is okay for the advertisers because they know and they can target their target audience. However, on the other hand, it seems kind of spooky, you know. You're reading an article about Game of Thrones and then on the other hand you will get 25 ads on Facebook by this Game of Thrones t-shirt, for example. Okay, so the digital marketing strategies are now in between two fires, as said, in between trust with the clients and in between trust with the consumers themselves. Now, when Jerry and me started discussing about it, our first idea was podcast, but then we said, no, let's bring more people into it to see what are their thoughts. So Anders, you are pretty much involved in everything that I have just said. Totally, yes. Would you like me to start to kick off? Yeah, why not? I took some notes on these things and there's a lot of themes here, but there are things also that haven't changed. I mean, you know, it's just the digital economy is accelerating everything we were already doing. So there were privacy problems before the internet and there is privacy regulation trying to catch up with what we used to have. But actually, in reality, I think the future is one in which I would like for us to go further. I like initiatives like the ones that they do. There are some blockchain approaches where all the user data will be sitting on the user's browser and not in Facebook and not in Google and not everywhere else. Those are interesting. So the first thing here is that it's all accelerated and basically it just brings the falls out much more openly than they used to be. So the system hasn't changed in that manner. So marketers always try to gather information, build a view of the world and figure out how they could best offer something to the user. And there is this positive side of things where basically the more data you have, the better you're supposed to be able to provide the right offer or the right level of information to a user. When you talk about stalking, stalking is a sentiment, isn't it? Stalking is when you feel that there's a big brother. It's more of a sentiment than something real. I mean, if you're in the shopping center and you've got the cameras going on, they're actively stalking you, but you don't feel stalked. It's security. It's whatever. It's information about circulation. It's observation. It's just monitoring. Now, the reason why we feel that it's stalking is because it's gone wrong. And so I'm very involved in this kind of thing. So it's a funny thing here. So in my own agency one day, so we were doing all sorts of digital marketing campaigns and I could go back to the human dimension of responsibility of each person. And I'm happy to. But one day we were discussing over lunch and two of the guys were saying, yeah, I put up an ad blocker on my browser. And I was like, okay, guys. Okay. As a human being, I can understand that as a marketer selling campaigns to clients. I cannot. Because basically, if we're acting on this market, we need to feel also what it does to people. So there's a point there that I want to dig into a little bit. So the normal communication loop is one in which there is an emitter and there is a medium and then there's a receiver and then there's a feedback loop. So what's been happening in digital marketing is that as there was more data, this whole circle went quicker. And the problem we have is that part of the feedback loop is broken. And you know that because you've seen the comics and stuff where it's all about this remarketing gone wrong where, well, you're trying to sell me this product and I already have it. Because I bought it through another channel or because somebody else bought it or because somebody else used my computer to look for this product. And these are all flaws in the flow of data. You can consider them as being data degradation rather than it's not too much data. It's too little data in reality. This is sort of funny. I'm not trying to defend any of this. I find it wrong and I know that some digital marketers are not doing what they should because they're not using what we call negative audiences. So they're not removing what they should from the target audience. That they should have. So there's this flaw of lack of information. All the digital marketing platforms will give you the positive information. So it's like consider like think about how spam works. Spam is like you don't care about the brand. You don't care about people. You care about the click or you have this one thing that you want to achieve and you will go through any means of stealing information, stealing data, email addresses. You will use illicit servers. You will you will you will cover your traces. Doesn't matter. The only thing you want is the click right? It's sort of and that's sort of sort of a mini image of this whole digital marketing system where the feedback loop isn't there and it's killing brands. And that's where the digital. So when what you said there are digital strategies that will understand this and that will take this into account and in that case, they will be able to say, OK, let's watch out here. Maybe this affiliate program is not, you know, is not right because there will be people we can't control. We have no control of what happens outside of the media sphere. There will be users of our brand of images of text that we cannot control. Do we want to do this? Will it be harmful for the brand? We will only see it in five years. But it's happening now. Should we focus on this last year performance? Yeah. If we focus on the remarketing itself, I mean, based on your webinar regarding pay-per-click campaigns and everything, that is exactly what you're talking about. If somebody is offering you shoes with that digital marketing agency doing things wrong and then they do more harm to the client and then we come to the trust part. Then the consumer is losing trust in the brand and the client is losing trust in digital marketing in general. Yeah. But you don't see the signs. You only see the signs a long time after. So in remarketing campaigns, what you will see is a reducing return. And I've been in the client situation where we were building up an audience on the basis of information. So this is good retargeting. We would build up a campaign. We would target people who had been to a certain place where we'd driven them. And we would retarget these people with a commercial offer. That's the way it should work. You target an interest and then you can retarget with an offer. And the client would say, yeah, we have diminishing returns, intensify the ad campaign. And we would say, well, if we have diminishing returns, it is because we've already saturated the market with this information. That feedback loop is really difficult to find because it's still profitable for the client. Okay. This was very technical. But I think I made a point about feedback loops and about a system that is broken, a lack of information about what actually happens to a brand when it's out there. And I would say, so stalking, okay, but that's not the purpose. There's never been the purpose. It may not be the intention. It may not be the intention at all. There's a lot of smart, well-intentioned people in the ad business, but the effect is very much about stalking. So I think there's a very interesting conversation to be had about intent behind the curtain. And it's funny, GDPR has resulted in me having to click through a lot of sites that say, hey, we use cookies. Are you okay with cookies? And it's like, that's what GDPR has done for me so far that I can observe. Yeah, I mean, I've been wrestling with this problem for 30 plus years. But I would speak to one fundamental misconception was ever part of the digital marketing space. I started back in the day when it was called direct marketing. And the thing about direct marketing, as Anders says, is that you build up a relationship over time. The problem with digital space was that advertisers, marketers, never understood that the space they were working in was not broadcast and it was not publications that people brought into you. You're actually working in the application space. And when you stand in television, in broadcast, there is a contract between the viewer and the advertiser. The viewer recognises that in return for being presented with adverts, you are actually being entertained. The challenge to the advertiser is to entertain. The challenge to the advertiser is to tell a story that is engaging. It's part of the entertainment pact. And that was built up over a very, very long period. As Anders says, the problem with digital marketing is first it was completely misunderstood to begin with. Most marketers had absolutely no experience of working in the digital space whatsoever. So they brought a whole raft of assumptions, particularly from direct marketing into the space. And it was a golden opportunity to go, oh, well, if we can talk to somebody directly on the screen, this is what we should do. Nobody questioned it at the time. And it was a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the device that the user was working with and how to address people in that space. And the desperation that I watched in marketers' faces as their returns diminished, as people blocked them, as ad blocking became endemic, et cetera, et cetera. And they couldn't get their heads around the fact that you cannot treat every single person as if they were a direct marketing target. And that's still the pressure. That's still the assumption that this is way too... It needs an entire rethink about the relationship between the marketer and the consumer, even if you choose to call them a consumer. And I'd go so far as to say that is almost a redundant concept now, particularly in the digital space. So to keep amplifying and essentially what digits bring to this space is amplification and speed. It's essentially still the same tools and techniques that we used 30 years ago with coupons, inside publications and printable, the rest of it, where you can build an audience over time and support that. But the speed and scale that digits bring kind of broke that contract wide apart, and then the misuse, the abuse, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So am I surprised there's a fundamental... there is a train wreck happening now? Not in the least. But as usual, 20 years ago, we were saying to people, there's going to be a train wreck and people are going, no, no, no, this is going to deliver exactly what we want. We're going to get tired of it. We're going to get the perfect relationship with our consumers. No, you're not. And here we sit today. Anyway, enough of a polemic for me. I'll be quiet now. A lot of these polemics. And I'd love to hear from a couple more people who have sort of deep experience in the field, like maybe Tom, did you want to... might you jump in? Yeah, right now I'm just going to be listening, nothing to add at this point. But coming from a company that did a lot of advertising, Coca-Cola, we very quickly moved into a group that did a lot of online work. Unfortunately, I was not a part of that group. So it's hard for me to contribute. There is one thing I've been hearing that I really do like, because I do believe that there isn't... I'd love to explore the idea of an implicit social contract. Because the social contract with the television was a very telling one. When I go out into the public world as a human being, people can observe my actions. And I believe that that is something that is going to happen and will happen. I like interacting with people who know me. So those who observe me can actually give me more value by interacting with me better in the future. The question is, what is that implicit social contract when I'm simply sitting at my keyboard? I don't feel like I'm out in public, I'm sitting in my living room. And so how do we manage this in terms of where do we put it? What domain do we consider this activity, this online activity? And do we have a shared understanding of that? Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that a bunch. And let me throw a couple things into the conversation just as observations. First, my whole journey for the last 25 years starts when I realized back in the mid-90s that I hated the word consumer. So I was like, why does this word make me twitch every time I hear it? And I estimate that in the 12 years that I was a tech industry analyst, I probably heard 4,000 startup pitches, of which a third were probably B to C, right? And so when the term B to C shows up and I'm starting to hear this going on, I'm realizing that I'm reacting to it very negatively. And so the smartest thing I've done for 25 years is pay attention to that emotion and follow it into some ideas about how this was working, what it was doing, et cetera, et cetera. I think that this conversation about the social contract and whether it's implicit or explicit or understood or whatever is really, really interesting. And I want to go deeper into that. And then another small data point is when cable TV begins, it's actually going into areas that are poorly served by over-the-air TV, by radio signals. And the bargain up front is, oh, you're paying us now for TV, which you've never had to do because there's ads. So cable TV is going to be ad-free. I'm just putting my notes here in the chat. Cable TV was going to be ad-free. And guess what? Cable TV ain't ad-free not for a second, not for a minute except for that terrible public access TV channel where the guy gets on at midnight and cross dresses or whatever is going on. I don't know. But the contract is unavoidable. I would pay $10 a month for a version of Facebook that doesn't track me at all and that guarantees never to. Facebook cannot offer me that option because it creates adverse selection for the pool of people who remain in the capture and sell off my data bucket. So this is really an unavoidable social contract in many ways so far. And there's a bunch of people trying to figure out how do we architect solutions that are distributed, where we own our own data, where we provide the server service and share the load of carrying that, et cetera, et cetera. But let me bump up a level in two different directions. One of which is the larger social contract seemed to be broken right now. The idea that if I go to school and do well with grades and go get a real job and stick to it, I'm going to be okay and be able to retire happily and make more than my kids. That sucker's really broken. And then the second direction I want to sort of reframe this is that so far our conversation is assuming the framing of the advertising industry that some kind of marketing is necessary and good. I'm sort of trying to step back from that and say companies need to, humans need to know that companies exist with products. There needs to be some way of understanding what's on offer. I get that. But I'm not clear that the way we market is in fact necessary. So I want to offer that as a way of looking at the frame that we're talking within right now. We may or may not get to that. So let me step back out of the circle and see who else would like to jump in. Milly, I'm sure you have something to say on the subject. Well, if it's okay for me to jump in. Okay. Go ahead then Milly. In the meantime, Milly will find the unmute button. Go ahead. I think you're actually spot on with the observation that we aren't that marketing is a deprecated process. It's a process that is less and less useful because we were essentially trying to replicate a 19th into 20th century model into a 21st century society. I did some work at IFTF a couple years ago around advertising and one of the observations we came up with was that as more and more people use bots and other kinds of software to augment their searches, increasingly advertising is going to be aimed at the bots, not at the people. You know, it's machines advertising to machines, trying to get the attention not of the human observer, who's ultimately the ultimate recipient, but of the software that's making a decision between different types of product or services. The larger point is that as I commented in the chat, I'm a big fan of my ad blocker, but it's fascinating to me to see how many people still embrace the idea that ad blocking, whether you're talking about on the web or jumping over commercials with your Tivo is theft. And if it's theft, then lock me up. Go ahead Milly. Found the button. Excellent. Well done. Yeah. In regards to the whole story, I mean, it's great conversation, but I believe that we are still hugely unaware of the possibilities that we are having and we are in a world where we just have abundance of data, which is just stupid noise and we still don't understand the value of the data and the value. I believe that the most important thing that we can receive from the digital world and from the data we are receiving is to understand people that are around us is to understand who are we targeting and why actually because the Edwards today and everything we are focusing on is just push it wide and see what happens. It's a thing definitely, but the strategies and people that around one business is something that we need to focus more to really understand the the intent behind the people. I was in a conference couple of days ago and I was speaking with a couple of guys from Google and they were saying like that in the next three to four years, the biggest project in the world of Google and inside of the marketing world will be to how to better understand the people that are that we are trying to have a conversation to it's a great actually great thing that you said that you don't like the word customers because really what is consumer. Yeah, consumers. That's okay, but customer and client are I'm okay with they're not as degrading as consumer to me. Exactly, but then again, where's the people in all of this where humans in all of this exactly. I mean this call is about humane digital marketing so you're right on you're right on it. Yeah, it's like the companies should not just advertise their products. We are way before I never liked for example, before the traditional kind of marketing is a lot about schemes and the position for peace and these kind of things. We have so many, we have so much power actually to help the people better understand their world with our products and what we do right so in sense of this how can we actually help to how can we actually use all of this huge amount of data that is going around us and to to divide the shitty 99% of shit that we are talking and that we are looking at to this 1% of data that is really valuable and that can give us the things. And this is a huge problem I read a couple of days ago in MIT Sloan and scientific experiment that had with recommendation engines and how they are actually how people that receive something from recommendation engine tends to buy the product even though without they would not go towards this kind of product or they had an example of the music that you want to be played next. So, actually the way that we use this data to create recommendation engine, we are blocking people to be more open or to have more randomness in their life like when when you create machine learning engine it's like 10% of randomness. Everything else is just placed on your past behavior. I mean why it makes no sense. So, just to cover the whole story, I believe that we are still very infant in this whole data story because it's just, it's abundance of it and we don't know how to actually use it properly today. And it's like, this is something that we need to focus on and to try to understand the people and really understand their intents and their, yeah, the people, consumers, whatever, we're just people as you show. I love that. So, so one, one brief comment just to put into the conversation and then a partial answer to your question really a comment is that the the language of advertising is the language of a military campaign. You may have felt this or noticed this but you launch ad campaigns against target demographics, you send flights of messages that might as well be Katusha rockets. You get paid by the impression you're trying to achieve market penetration. And a piece of why this is so is that mad TV gets big after World War Two, a whole bunch of GI has come off of World War Two and go to Madison Avenue. And I know what this is like. This is a one way brought this is just like an artillery barrage, or like, you know, precision bombing. And so the language is perfect and you know the the mad men of the 50s, 60s and so forth. institutionalize that and we take for granted the language the method the framing all those kinds of things. So, in country and I'll put a I've got a video that I shot about this basically explaining it and with a couple visuals, but the contrast to this is a slide I use all the time. I put three words on screen really big I say, do you want to stalk or do you want to serve. And so, first I need them there by in a little bit that we're in a stalker economy and that's relatively easy to prove because there's just so much of this going on between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica and the elections and the this and the that. There's just way too much evidence this is going on. But then I say, hey, awesome, but to be of service I actually need to know a lot about you. And really what you just said I think I think resonates very strongly with this, which is, I so far, perhaps naively trust Google more than most of the other players in the arena, even though I know that most of the revenue is ads. I believe that they're applying ads in the most ethical way they know how keeping as little data about me as they can, despite the fact that I occasionally get an email that says hey, here's your Google trips report for the last quarter and here are all the cities you went to and if you want to see exactly where your phone was during that day in that city, just click here we got that. I'm like, holy crap, holy crap. But I don't think they're busy intent on like Verizon is, for example, selling the hell out of that data to make sure I buy more crap. So to be of service. And what I love about Google, for example, is that when I'm on my phone in the field and I open up Google Maps, and I start to tap in a search, it knows that I just search for that on my desktop because it's in my search history. So it's going to pop up that store that restaurant that whatever it was, and it's going to know my context that knows what pins I put in my map, etc, etc. And the end result is that I have to engage in many fewer clicks in order to have a smooth and God willing successful life. And so I think being of service is a really interesting goal that we misunderstand because in some sense the conventional ad world is trying to be of service, but doing so in ways that are so jarring, but have been normalized that we don't understand how jarring and how stocky they are. So we have this interesting conversation about intent versus perception versus, you know, actions. And all of this is kind of playing out actively in the field. Roy, I saw you raising your hand a moment ago. No, I just, sorry, your point about, you know, you use Google, Google is an application. It's a search and find application. So we find whether the platform, the point is it behaves like an application. We do the search, it provides us the answers. And so the contract is there. It's perfectly understood. You aid me. I'm not perfectly understood, but it's in some kind of context. It's in the same perceptual domain. I click some keys because I'm looking for something. It's not I'm in the middle of clicking some keys, writing a WordPress document or whatever, writing a Word document. Or I'm talking to my mother-in-law in Facebook and something intrudes onto that. And I think until that fundamental distinction is understood, we are going to go round and round and round in circles, trying to be of service. Thank you, Doug. Yeah, several comments that might not be terribly well connected. The first is the goal of the marketeers seems to be to make me totally predictable. If I'm totally predictable, then somebody's going to come up with a smart idea, we could use the system to replace voting and democracy. Because in fact, Google knows who I want to vote for better than I do. So why not just let them do that for me. That's the trend. In this, we keep hearing the word target Jerry pointed it out. I don't want to be a target. The markets began as a place that one went to when you wanted to get something. But the market did not come to you. I don't know how to make that part of the future, but I find it an attractive idea that we would not let the market come at us in any way whatsoever. But we would have total freedom to go to the market whenever we want to. The market could even have data on what we do once we're there, but it can't use it to get to me. Now, the next thing that's on my mind is we're talking about this as though the rest of society is in a steady state, but it's in fact going to be changing rapidly. So I wonder what this marketing system with all the data will do in its adaptation its reaction to crises, like let's say Trump decides not to give up the presidency. What happens to all these interconnections we've built up. Could it be used for anything good. Can this marketing situation come into the world of climate change and help manage that where we've got to shift out of material consumption and into relationship and our consumption. So these are some thoughts I'm looking for what is the larger frame for this conversation and I can't quite find it. Doug, thank you and I will add that curiously we are 40 minutes into an inside Jerry's brain call and I haven't shown my brain yet so if you will forgive me if as you're talking I go screen share my brain on things that you're talking about which I will sort of do momentarily. Andres you were asking for the floor. Go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to react on on on that question about about what would happen if if Trump decided to get to stay and I want to share this Ted talk I don't know if you've seen this one by a British journalist. And it's about Facebook and it talks about the algorithms it talks about how this whole system works and it's it's more or less saying that this was paid for and it was all done simply with advertising to do the Brexit. So saying also that yeah so it's it's I mean if you haven't seen it's it's an amazing piece of what what I want to get to is that behind that there was commercial interest or there was monetary interest there was money that was finance and and you can do a lot of stuff and you can do dirty stuff on the internet and buy all of these channels. If you have a lot of money the problem we have with with crisis is the sort of the economic question where does the money come from if we're talking planetary crisis environmental crisis who's going to come up who's going to put it put in the money to actually do something radical of this type. So so I think those systems are not not necessarily useful. But then if you look at sort of totally other side of the equation the way Twitter became became you know important. Now it's sort of known for for being sort of an enhancement of what Trump says but but but Twitter really became mainstream and famous when they managed to share information that came out of closed countries during the Arab Spring and before that. I don't remember what what area that was there was there was something happening before that where very important information came out during a military crisis where they were trying to lock down information. So that was very beautiful and that was a new application. So so so I you know that there can be thanks to all the technology that's available out there that could be new stuff but I wouldn't you know I wouldn't count on Facebook to be to be to save anything in relation with with any political crisis. A couple of things, if it's all right. Anders I think the answer to your Twitter observation is Twitter was able to spot the assassination or the death of Osama bin Laden, before it was officially announced, because of people in Afghanistan in Afghanistan, I'm sorry in Pakistan, who saw the cop, the American helicopters come in and talked about it on Twitter. And so some folks put two and two together. And so the death of bin Laden came out on Twitter before. Something before that something before I'll look it up. Okay. So try for an answer to Douglas's question about what the overarching framework might be. And it's something that my attempted answer that is, is that it's the recognition that norms are toothless that when we have a society of norms, when we have social behavior that is predicated upon observation of norms, you know, following along with norms, as opposed to laws. When as soon as somebody recognizes that norms have no enforcement power, or norms do not necessarily have any enforcement. They have social enforcement power but the social enforcement power can be undermined and social enforcement power requires a, you know, a critical mass of people. It can be a social contract where you don't want to screw with the social norms. And so in that, you know, in that context, then you think about what's happening with politics you think about what's happening with, with marketing, you know, and the intrusiveness of so much, you know, the emergence of surveillance capitalism, the regulatory capitalism. And a lot of it comes down to the recognition that we've been doing this thing that doesn't we've been doing this thing that makes us weaker or we we haven't been engaging in all of our strengths because we've been told it's a bad thing to do but there's no law against it. So, why should I do what you tell me to do if if I don't have to. Why should I turn over this these documents just because you tell me to. What are you going to do about it. And I think the, you know, when you think about Trump not leaving office in 2020 or 2021 technically should that happen. You know the what are you going to do about it is the question that comes up. And I don't know if there if anyone has offered up a good answer for that. I mean, the part that the part when this got a little too hot for me was when Trump skipped a whole series of norms but one was that presidential candidates reported their you know turned in their tax forms and all that. And he just sidestep that and there was no way to enforce it and at that moment I realized, well damn it my perspective from the relationship economy and designing from trust and all those kinds of things is that norms are better than one of the little things I say is that we pass laws when discourse fails that the better thing is to have fewer laws and to get people into discussion around whatever the friction is, and to get them to resolve it, and then to bubble up the forms of resolution so they become broader more you know more visible norms that we know about them. Trump's deciding to skip that norm and me feeling very strongly that that he should have you know have been forced to disclose was a moment of me hitting my theories, going oh crap, you know, I, I don't know why Congress hasn't tried really hard to pass a law before this election cycle that says that all candidates must disclose you know 20 years worth of income tax forms, plus all of their financial relationships, whatever whatever, you know. That might actually put a stop to Trump running for reelection if you couldn't stop that from being passed, but who knows. Okay. So I want to hear somebody that's not from the marketing space that that's not so much involved in in marketing. What are your views on it? Baldus, John, Ken, Michael. Dragan also. No, I can. We are, you know, you know, as a company, we're involved with more to business to business marketing. So I can perhaps relate more to the consumer or customer part, part of the view. So what I'm always wondering is a tech guy who is trying to help marketers achieve their goals in their marketing goals. I mean, and to serve their clients better. What I've always wondering is, why is there no possibility somehow as a client to react to my data that is already out there? Why is there no possibility to tell the companies, oh, yeah, sure, I'm interested in this, but I'm not interested in that because you get it wrong somehow. Does it make sense? Yeah, it does. Make sense to me. I was thinking of that earlier of if there was an opt in potential, I love Jerry's idea of what if Facebook offered an option of hey, pay $10 a month or $15 a month, whatever it is, and we will track you and at some point it becomes very expensive in a lot of social networks if you're doing that all the time but you know if you're just hooked up to one or two that's doable. I also have this question about the persistence. I noticed way back in the 90s when I was doing some web work that I would see cookies that were placed on my computer that had an expiration date of 2032. You know, it's like, why does somebody need to track me for 30 fucking years? This really is amazing to me. What if marketers had, you know, a limitation of after three days your cookies disappear. Maybe for some subscription sites they need something different than that, but if you're just tracking me for ad purposes, you shouldn't be able to get a whole long history of me. That feels really invasive. And then I noticed someone posted the link to the Washington Post article about what's has been listening the whole time. I have a house sit for some friends when they go away. They were a dog and they've got Alexa there and I put the thing in a drawer. I really find it creepy. We happen to have a niece named Alexa and, you know, you mentioned her name and the thing that what can I help you with and it's like I don't like being eavesdropped on any more than I like being watched. So there's just some emotional stuff here that I find very challenging to deal with and I think it's it's a complete invasion that I didn't sign up for. So I don't have any answers. I have strong emotional reactions and I have some, you know, some ideas of, well, you shouldn't be able to track me in this regard, but my ideas are just as truthless as the norms in society. So a couple things. There's a question that like maybe privacy is a generational thing and I regret that we have neither any young folk on this call nor any people of the feminine gender, which is, you know, I just sort of threw this on a bunch of different lists that are pretty gender balanced and didn't really happen. So I'm trying to figure out do younger people just like, for example, we used to say don't trust anybody over 30. That was in the 60s when 30 seemed like it was like really old. Of course, now we think you should trust everybody over 30. Right. But maybe in 50 years they're going to say don't trust anybody who doesn't have an embarrassing series of photos of themselves doing weird stuff online because that little trail indicates that they were a real human being and did stuff, right. So has technology shifted our perceptions of privacy in China? People seem to be very accepting of the increasingly invasive surveillance state that they're building. What are they going to do about it? Are you hearing in any sort of time analysis of some of these issues? Are you hearing any propensity toward actually large scale shifts in our perceptions or preferences on privacy? No. Anybody else? Ask any person under 30 about doxing. You'll hear something about privacy. It's a different, I think that younger people today have a different model of privacy. That's some of the stuff that, you know, those are the foggy generation generations will find, you know, things that we have to do. There's a picture of me dancing on a table, so fucking what? Whereas there's stuff that, you know, perhaps older people don't care about privacy. I think that younger people today have a different model of privacy. That's some of the stuff that, you know, those are the foggy generation generations will find things that we absolutely would want to keep private and hidden. Whereas there's stuff that, you know, perhaps older folks may not be terribly uncomfortable about talking about that younger people do want to keep personal or keep hidden or will lie about to pollute the data stream. You know, lying to pollute the data stream is, and Jeremy, you and I have talked about this before, is actually a surprisingly powerful tool for the protection of personal privacy and wow, that's a lot of peace. That doesn't require you to have an immense amount of power. But yeah, so doxing, do you have a brain squib about doxing? I was just showing doxing in my brain while you were talking. Okay. So it's unmasking, it's used a lot to harass women online. I've got a couple articles here. It's not a very rich, not a very rich entry. And I was heading toward intentional obfuscation because there's basically creating the fog of war is a really successful strategy. Anybody seen hypernormalization? I recommend this documentary often. It's a documentary by Adam Curtis, who is a BBC documentarian, and it basically talks about nonlinear warfare. And in nonlinear warfare, you win through misinformation, disinformation, whatever else, because information warfare is just a lot cheaper than bombs and bullets. And it turns out you can take a lot more territory probably over a much longer time frame. So one of my more cynical beliefs is that we are actually already in a nonlinear war. And most of us don't realize it, that the kinds of tactics we're talking about, which on the one hand can be used for advertising are also being used to manipulate public opinion on a very large scale, but also to create disinformation on a very large scale. You know, witness what all the misinformation campaigns that were injected into the 2016 election cycle that are probably happening again, that were injected into the cycle because Facebook presented a window to anybody coming in with 30 bucks to go advertise whatever and wasn't really vetting who was advertising wasn't really paying attention to what was going on until it realized that people were misusing our advertising system, which was so highly targeted, etc. The power of obfuscation is critical. And that's something that I made a point at the Arab media forum a couple weeks ago talking about this kind of stuff that the whole goal of these kinds of campaigns is not to get you to believe something that is untrue. They're meant to make you doubt the truth. So that you can't tell the difference between what is untrue and what is true. And that I think is far more powerful, in fact, than getting people to believe something that's untrue because you get them to believe it. Eventually they can be convinced or, you know, found that they made a mistake if you get them to doubt everything, they feel like they're being smart and skeptical. So we've gone quite a ways down the possibly predictable rat hole of how awful things are and where we've gotten to the part of the premise of our call I see Dino smiling a little bit. Part of the premise of our call is, what on earth should a digital marketer do to be a humane digital marketer and to reverse some of these things? And I think what we're showing here is that there's plenty of things that need reversing, that need fixing. And one question I just want to post the group is, what does humane marketing mean to you? Or humanistic marketing? We use whatever, frame the word any way you want, human, humane, humanistic, I don't know what variant appeals to you. Or should it be a different word than one rooted in the word human? What does the other kind of marketing sound like, smell like, mean like to you? I want to tell a really brief story and then I'll, this is that question. About 10 years ago, I was part of something called America Speaks. I was a facilitator for about 6000 people in the state of California hooked up by satellite and large auditoriums at tables of 10 to talk about healthcare. And they said, you know, single payers off today, we're not going to talk about that. But within about an hour, there was a major theme emerging from every table in every location of why do we even have insurance involved in healthcare, because their motive is profit. And there's, they're profiting off the suffering of people and that should be removed from the equation. And so that stimulates in my brain something around this, what is humanistic marketing look like of why are there market marketers are out there to make a profit off of direct as a middleman. They want to sell me something that someone else wants to sell me. There's trading information data, whatever it is. This whole idea of profit motive of growth is linked to a growth economy. And, you know, we're seeing that a hyper growth economy is totally unsustainable in a finite world of, you know, that has ecological limits. So it feels like we're kind of talking about something at the edge of a very large tipping point here that I don't know quite how to get my mind around. But humanistic marketing to me is where I can opt in and say, here's stuff I'm interested in and someone can look through and say, we can match you up to people, the services and products that you need that you're interested in. And we're not here to track you and and sell that off to other people and make more money on it. We're just here to provide a very simple transactional service. So that's what that means to me. I love that. Gene, then Doug. Are we making any differentiation between marketing and selling? I don't know. I'm thinking of marketing as a component of selling. So I think I've got them in roughly the same sort of set. If you look at the companies, if you have marketing department and sales department, they are both commercial departments. So for the sake of this argument, let's say no, there are no distinctions. And Gene, does that, how does that work for you? Well, I understood selling to be the activity that an organization undertakes because it believes that if it doesn't, the potential customer base won't buy the amount of products that it wants to sell. It's an outwardly directed activity, whereas marketing is an activity to conduct it to better understand the needs of the customers so that you can create products that better serve the customer. So that there's some of the collection activity would seem to be more marketing than sales in terms of trying to better understand who the customer is. But rather than use that to develop better products, they use it to sell, to target. But I still find value in differentiating the two activities. Doug, then Tom. Okay, the phrase humanistic marketing implies as an alternative, like mechanistic marketing or something. And the question is, which of those two sides do most marketers work for? Well, I think that the way I'm presenting this proposition, this question is that we are way deep in stalker marketing, surveillance marketing, whatever you want to frame it as. And we don't know quite how predatory and quite how aggressive it is. And so I think that the framing of this call is very much asking, so what is the opposite of that? So I think we're coming back toward what your question is there. Tom, did you want to jump in? Yeah, just a little bit of thought from the idea that selling is actually to me has a little more positive balance to it. In the sense that when there is equal information on both sides, people are taking a transaction that benefits both parties. Whereas marketing is often thought of as all that particular act, but all the activities that went into making that possible. You're not only marketing the products at the right place in the right time, but also getting people to know about it and to think about it in a certain way. This is where it can become much more intrusive and unwanted, because you'd market to many more people than you felt you. And when I'm being marketed to by people I don't want to be marketed from, and they may or may not know that. It's many people who know I don't want their service, but they are still spamming my phone every single day. You need to be able to make your product known to the public. The question becomes, at what point is your trying to communicate with them become an intrusion? And they leave some latest signal, I do not want to protect in a transaction with you and therefore leave me alone. There are others that I have no idea that I want to ever transact with them, but I find perhaps their television ads very entertaining. Nike, please keep sending me your ads. I love your ads. I'm not going to buy your product, but I don't feel that you are doing something to harm my life. But when you get these unwanted messages, that's where I think you've broken the line. But when you seem to have learned about me in a way that makes me feel that it's been too invasive. Anders, did you want to jump in? Yeah, I think there's a lot of things that have changed with digital marketing. I think marketing and sales are pretty much working hand in hand in most cases, especially when it's online sales. You can't distinguish what is sales efforts and what is marketing efforts. Anyway, to answer your question, I would like to, I think we're down a lot of paths where the system is broken. And I think I like the concept of human centered marketing or human humanist or humane marketing. I actually think, and it's something I've been pruning for a while. And when I took that example of my staff, putting out ad blockers, which was a fair point and I accepted and let them do it. But I think in a number of occasions, I would say in that company, I'd say that provider and what they do, I do not agree. So these would be, we would get calls from ad services that could do all sorts of pop-ups that would drive magnificent click-through and whatever. And I'd seen some of them. I'm like, no way ever am I going to sell that kind of crap to my clients. I just don't want to. And I think this takes it down to the human again, to the human perception. And I think, you know, I wrote in an article just earlier today, how come companies are still hiring internships to run their social media, be the voice of our brand. I mean, come on guys, it's crazy. I think it has to come back to some kind of understanding and responsibility for what we're doing. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of lack of knowledge of how these systems work. It's opaque. I don't like it. And I think the human, and I think the people can do a lot to do that. I think there's a responsibility to be had in the sector and the first to pick it up and talk about it. Agreed. Totally agree. Let me put a different idea in the conversation that I haven't done that much with, but I kind of like it. And this is the idea of, I call it becoming a trusted ally. And I've been focusing on trust that my quest into why I didn't like the word consumer turned into a realization that I was really talking about trust over 25 years. And so I kind of came back into it thinking that, you know, try I made simple comparisons between what does it mean trust and trustworthiness trust is something the company seemed to think they can advertise for like the brand nine out of 10 doctors recommend most or dentist recommend most and does these lovely old ads with Ronald Reagan selling Chester fields and doctors in robes selling like the T zone is better for your throat than other kinds of cigarettes and all kinds of crap, you know, way back when. But then I realized that that even if you try to become very trustworthy by opening up the curtain and saying this is what we do and how we do it. These are our policies. These are our promises. These are our pledges. It doesn't really change the game. It doesn't it doesn't change the dynamic between me and those customers. I'm trying to win over, but that there's a there's a spot a kind of a high spot a high ground above the marketplace that I call being a trusted ally. And the question I asked to make this point is sort of a rhetorical question, which is, do you tell your doctor, your health insurance company, your entire health nexus, do you tell them everything about your life and your health, you know, health related issues around your life. And the answer mostly it's a rhetorical question because the answer mostly is no. The system is designed that if you tell them too much or whatever else it's going to end badly for you. Then I ask a second question, which at this point is unfortunately rhetorical. But the second question is what if you could. What if your health care provider was your trusted ally, which meant that you knew that they were acting on your behalf and only on your behalf with a little back window on society's behalf. Meaning, if I confess to my health care provider that I've had these dreams of walking into a school and shooting small children, they probably need to report me. But but short of that, what does it take to have such a trusted relationship where they and I can begin hacking my health happiness fitness well being, all together in some way, which would mean at the other end, connecting up with services devices suppliers mentors. I don't know what there's a whole there's a whole world of offers on the other side of being a trusted ally. But as your trusted ally, I become the veteran conduit and connector of all those kinds of things. But I need to be that level of trustworthy to be your trusted ally. Right. And I think a piece of what what I'm interested in this conversation heading toward is, what does that even mean? How do you become that trustworthy? How do I know that you're that trustworthy? Is this a good position to be in with any with any supplier of a good or service want to be a trusted ally? I'm thinking yes, because advertising is insanely expensive. It's, you know, David Ogilvy is famous saying of 50% of my ad budget is wasted. I just don't know which 50%. But but you know, and word of mouth is the cheapest, most powerful form of advertising, if you will, of connecting to new customers who will actually pay you money for your product and services. Roy. I was just going to say that you illustrate something very interesting. So I'm in the UK. We have a national health service. I am quite happy or have been up until fairly recently to tell my doctor or my practice nurse or whoever anything that I felt that was material. I felt I was in a safe space to do that. However, as we increasingly move towards an Americanized model of health supply, I'm being more cautious. So the question here is perhaps is that in a commercialized context. Do we have a we do have I think a very different definition of what is human trust, even though it could be presented through someone who would traditionally you went to your doctor to talk to them. So I think it's almost as as money steps further into the picture. It becomes more problematic. And I think part of the skill of the advertiser particularly broadcast advertisers was to reframe a product in a very safe, accessible space where the consumer for want of a better term could almost take a really talking principally here about consumer facing products as opposed to business business products where the relationship particularly for large ticket items was a much longer process. And it was much more complex process. But for consumer ticket consumer item consumer tickets, you were you know you were creating a space a pleasant space for somebody to identify your brand when they walk down the supermarket. That was pretty much it. And the more successful you were in certainly in this culture of amusing people entertaining people, providing high quality content that perhaps in some respects was often better than the programs they were watching. They felt good towards you. So what you were doing is we're creating a sense of trust and good feeling. Now I think part of the problem with the cost dynamics in the online space is that that effort that craftsmanship that work that goes into creating that entertainment has been thrown out completely because it's just not cost effective across mass cultures, because if you're angry in a broadcast situation where you're going up to three 4 million people for a 30 second commercial, you haven't do that on a one to one basis and it's almost impossible to deliver that from it certainly from a creative and engaging standpoint so we shouldn't take out the notion of creativity from human conversation. That's kind of part of something we enjoy. So if you want to do, if possible, gently push back or at least, you know, attempt to steer the idea of trust and trusted ally on here and offer up a potentially a new word for your brain. And that refers that is a derogatory term used to refer to usually women on social media who contact their friends to try to sell them and get them involved in multi-level marketing scams. To a very great degree, Han is used as a, hey Han, how you doing? Kind of greeting and has become has been picked up as a probably slightly derogatory term to refer to the people who are trying to push their trusted relationship into a sales relationship. And the, well it's usually, it's probably spelled H-O-N in the conversation, it's H-U-N is used in the anti MLM media. Thank you. And so the reaction that people, that many people have to having somebody who is there, who they perceive as a friend, a trusted ally, suddenly try to create a transactional relationship, a market relationship with them is actually, it's a very strongly negative reaction. And so I wonder to what degree can you be a trusted ally and a transaction partner? I mean, to certain degree you must be able to in some way, but it's a precarious balance. Totally interesting. And I'll just share here in the dictionary.com says it's also used as dismissive slang for people peddling multi-level marketing or pyramid schemes. Han or Han bought, interesting. And I'll share that as we talk. So I don't think that charging somebody for a service that they really like and being a trusted ally are incompatible. I think they actually work together really quite well because there's something that costs money to deliver and you're working from a basis of very deep trust to get to which of the things am I going to use, do or whatever. So I don't see the conflict here. I think that this kind of Han, which is like am I run amok kind of scenario that you're describing is clearly a social phenomenon and I totally get it and doesn't have really anything to do with the notion of trusted ally as I'm seeing it. Your friend just became an untrustworthy person by doing the aggressive multi-level marketing, so drop them. Does that make sense? So this is the opposite of becoming a trusted ally. Well, I made a comment in the chat that might be relevant here that is you start with a transaction relationship, you can potentially become a trusted ally. But if you start as a trusted ally and try to turn that into a transaction relationship, that poisons the relationship. I'm still skeptical. So if I provided free medical information for years that you went and consulted and was trustworthy and then one day you're like, hey, you who've been providing this really trustworthy information, I need a procedure. Would you do it for me or match me with the best provider and you'll make a commission and I know that. I'm totally cool with that. That works just fine too. Trust building takes time. Actual trust building takes performance of actions over time. You can't just advertise it and say the brand 9 out of 10 doctors recommend most. You have to actually sort of do something and doing something for free for a lot of people turns out to be really damn cheap now. Right. And now the hard part is letting people know that what you did was trustworthy in some way and you may be deluded about whether it was trustworthy or not. So you need it's a little hall of mirrors at some point sometimes. So I think it's complicated and I like that you're bringing out the complexities you may, but I'm still not seeing that these things are incompatible. Well, I think that if I trusted you and trusted you for years and then I asked about something and then I discovered that what you recommended to me you get a you get a spiff on. I would tell you right up front. And if you tell me right up front, I suspect that I would still lose a little bit of trust just because I know that you are profiting from the relationship. You are monetarily profiting from relationship and that just is kind of squeaky to me. It does change the relationship and I think people will become I think there's a role for. So let's just posit that 20 years from now there's a new role in the public sphere of people who are scouts for products and services who build the relationships over time today they're called influencers and they're mostly shills. But let's pretend that a trusted advisor role shows up that is compensated by the the recommendation fees or connection fees or whatever, but who are high trust entities because of something they did and something they pledged and they're doing and that they were placed a lot of ad that instead of you know I'll turn on all my ad blockers I'll put up all the defense mechanisms and I'll send chaff out, you know behind my digital trail so that nobody can actually get good data on me. And instead I will head over to these trusted intermediaries who become the new marketers, because it's their job to understand for some thing I'm looking at let's say I'm trying to join a gym in my neighborhood. They'll actually understand the tradeoffs between the gyms who the good trainers are they'll have some deep understanding and personal connections to the things that they're helping me choose between. Can posted in the chat something about Amazon which just triggered something for me, and that is people use the Amazon code when they post a link to books that they recommend a book for products that they recommend. And that feels okay is more so than somebody who I would I would go to somebody who is a friend who happens to get a little bit who you know who recommends a book. And I recognize that they're going to get a couple cents off of that by I not sure I would trust an influencer or somebody whose role it is to tell me about products. And that may be me I have a weird brain and so I'm I'm fully ready to cop that this is just me. You have a brain that was going to be enshrined as a national treasure when you finally are cryogenically frozen at the end of your span, you know sharing this rock with us. Please know. In my brain, all of the book links are unfortunately Amazon links because I started doing that early and I like that. And in my brain, all of the book links should have my Amazon affiliates ID at the end of them. And if you go to the Jerry's brain site, I have a little disclaimer that hey if you see books in here. And by the way, a lot of these books are books I hate and would recommend you never like like believe what they say. But I'm not going to tell you not to read them because that's a really good strategy for getting you to not see the world enough and critically blah, blah, blah. When I take a link from my brain and post it into a public forum or send somebody an email or whatever, I almost always chop off my own ID intentionally. I go in and I remove the Amazon ID because I just want to send them a clean link and I don't want what you just described to be happening. So I try to be mindful of that, but that's and I think over the 20 years I've been an Amazon affiliate because I think I signed up the moment they started the program. I've gotten like 20 bucks or something like that total ever from from being an affiliate, which only says that nobody ever visits my brain. Anyway, Tom you're raising your hand. And also Roy. I just like to hear what other people think about this concept of when we're conflating this idea of like selling to me and being in my social network. There's the idea of intent and I love this idea of what is your intent, do you know me and is your intent to truly help me with my well being. And let me be clear about something when I say trusted ally I'm thinking big companies I'm not thinking human influencers in your network. But actually that was not my first go to it was what if I reframed how I act as a company to become your trusted ally. So this was not how do I hack my social networks to be your. Right, so we were talking about the multi level marketing person, you know, in my social network and there's also the companies need that I because you are a company I believe your intent is to make money. And so there's a expectation there that's okay. But when you're in my social network. I do allow you permission to have two different intent one is, you know me you like me and therefore your interest is my well being and say you've used a great product you want me to know about it. Because you believe it will benefit me and someone you have a altruistic intention you have a friendship. But then there's others who have an intention to say look how she makes her money all day long she's on her social network trying to sell this product to everybody. And so I really am interested in this idea of how do we understand and declare somebody's intent, because that has a lot to do with how you're going to evaluate them. This trust has sort of that sliding scale or these at least different dimensions. And, and I'll very much agree with one thing I think you may was saying is that money pollutes relationships that that you know, in very many different ways, you know, you go to a friend's house. They you go to a lovely dinner at a friend's house, you leave them 100 bucks on the table on your way out. That is fucked up. So, so, so don't do that. Right. So go ahead. There's a flip side to that coin, which is I believe that there's a lot of different movements. Capitalism or everything where they're saying, Hey, look, we already had a financial transaction. We're trying to add to it that that altruistic intent that is the dinner party. So they're trying to have some way of saying, We understand the dirtiness of most transactions, but ours will be in a way less dirty. Roy than Michael and then I'll point out that we're 10 minutes from the end of our call. Just two things speaking to both of those. First of all, what was it that made the Tupperware party such a successful thing. They worked. The second thing is, I think, speaking to Tom's point about corporates, as long as the value exchange, I think we're very sensitive. We're very sensitive to value exchange or when we're being gouged at the point at which it becomes gouging. We step back and we certainly don't like to find out after the event that we got gouged. So if you can avoid that and you can give a value and this is where value and money are not the same thing. I'm sure Michael speak to that endlessly. That is a comfortable relationship to exist. But it's very difficult to do it. I would argue that it's extremely difficult to do it in an online context because people have a limited amount of time to discover whether you are in fact delivering value. It's a lot of work to discover whether one product being sold on Amazon or even just simply doing that Amazon eBay comparison. I see it on Amazon for X, then I go to eBay and get it for X less. And then I go back to Amazon and see is it the same product and you reach a point where you go, okay, I'm just going to go with whatever's on the screen in front of me. So it's the digital context creates and I come back to this point. This context of being in an application space makes it fundamentally different to being in real world space. I mean, we got used to seeing 48 sheet posters on the highway. Thank you Roy. So Michael, and then let me go back to Dino because we're getting near the end of our call and I want to see if we've served the question at all. What questions you still have kind of in your head and maybe we'll do a repeat call on the same topic because I think we've turned over some interesting soil but Michael. Yeah, brief intervention just it's more my job's worth to allow the conflation of money with anti social behavior to just sit. Yes, the money we are used to the flat earth variety sucks greatly and totally extractive. There are however monies coming soon to appear to near you which are reciprocal. And the relationship between value connections is utterly utterly different. That's my flag on the plate and I will end here. Thank you Roy. Can we have a call on that Michael. Absolutely anytime sure. I would love an inside Jerry's brain call on reciprocal monies and flat earth monies and I think that'd be a fantastic subject to get involved with types of money, circular money, etc. We were we were trying to get a good explanation of circular money to do to have that call. So Michael, let's get, let's get back on that and see if we can set that up. Circular money is money that comes back pretty scarce on my house. It's a very difficult way to go away. You know, yeah. So I've been listening to you guys for less. Let's say 20 or 30 minutes or so. Getting a lot of insights. And yes, actually my idea was to, to, you know, organize a repeat call that will be more focused on the sales rather than on marketing part. We have touched base the platforms. We have touched base the selling option. We have touched base the, you know, health care, money, all that stuff, politics also, etc, etc. So why don't we wrap things up with the, with also with the sales approach in the, in the digital economy in the, in the stock economy. Because let's say that we have a clear understanding where does the marketing, marketing sits in. Why don't we, you know, discuss sales a little bit further. So I like that. I'd love to have you explain it a little bit more because when I think it was Roy who said a little bit earlier that online in particular sales and marketing tend to conflate. Because, you know, what you put on the web page where the buy this button lives is marketing, but that's the sale. That's the act of selling right there. So these two things are one in the same. So do you mean sales of a particular, of a service in a particular context? You mean something else? And how are you, how are you separated because I don't, I don't think I have the clarity anymore of what's the difference between sales and marketing. And I know that in many companies, these are different departments, but, but I'm not sure I have the clarity that you're. Back in the days, sales and marketing were one team, one commercial team. Then let's say in, in sixties, they, they got divided into separate ways that directions. And now they are floating back in mainly and primarily because of the platforms such as booking.com, Amazon, eBay. They are, they are, you know, combined in such a way and in such a matter that, you know, that I believe that there is no turning back. Now we have started the discussion with the trust part. And that is exactly what the consumer, I have to say the word, when the consumer comes to the, comes to the website. So it's about trust. If they see on the website what is written on the ad, if the offer is legit, they will buy it. If it's not, then we are in, in a Tupperware situation. Anybody want to add some thoughts at that time? Yeah, there's an assumption maybe that products can meet human needs. I like the idea of trying to convince people to develop their human needs that cannot be meant, met by products. I'm not sure I'm, I'm not sure I'm getting your thing right in the chat, but it's sort of close. Thanks, Doug. And I mean, one of the interesting criticisms of marketing is that an advertising in particular is that marketers in particular consumer math marketers can never have us be satisfied. We can never have enough. We can never think that our status is enough. We can never be beautiful enough. We can never, there should always be an open loop of desire and need in us as humans. Or we will stop buying your damn product because your product is making us buffer, cleaner, tighter, cheaper, better, whatever it is. And, and so, so Doug's question runs completely opposite that, which is like, hey, how might, how might humans realize one word that we haven't uttered in this conversation that I think is really interesting is the word enough. And if I was your trusted ally, one of the conversations I would have with you, probably right up front, is what is enough for you and when do you know when you've reached enough. And how might we rethink your acquisition and retirement plans and whatever else it is, so that you see enough on the horizon and you actually hit it and realize what that is. And what does that mean for your material acquisitions? And does that mean that, you know, that downhill bike that's really expensive that's hanging, you know, in your, in your garage. Maybe you should sell it because you haven't ridden it for three or five years and, and that will help get the worry that somebody's going to steal it from your garage out of your head. And it'll let that bike exist in somebody else's life who's actually going to enjoy it, things like that. Like, I think, I think the enough conversation is one that, that most marketers don't want to have. And then every now and then, a company like Patagonia creates a campaign called buy less stuff, or don't buy this jacket. It's part of their buy less stuff campaign and their implied message is only buy things that are durable and super high quality that you might pass down to your kids. By the way, we make really durable things you might want to hand down to your kids so only buy Patagonia stuff. I kind of, you know, everybody understands, I think most people understand the implicit message, but, but acquisitiveness and this notion of when do we have enough I think is an important part of this conversation that's usually off the table, because marketers don't want us to have it to feel like we're enough. John Mealy, do you want to jump in? Any, any concluding words? Maybe in this context of human marketing. I will just give an example of things I would like to see in the future that happened to me in regards to the combination of technology and marketing and helping me. I'd like to come home and open my fridge, which tells me I eat too much candy and offers me on a big screen the ways how to get rid of getting candies or what to do to eat somewhere healthy stuff or whatever to read about the health issues of this and help me give. What if you could only open the fridge door if you worked at treadmill for a while? It's actually called persuasive technology. Yeah, so this is it. I like the idea of your concept. I'm trusted. I would go even far a little bit. I would say trusted servant. And servant leadership, servant marketing, something like that is very interesting, because servant implies being of service, etc. And I think being of service is a really interesting high concept. It's a very old thing, but I think it's really important here. Agreed? Yeah, that's it. I believe we are still in the beginning of something that will be quite huge in our future and we don't know, we need to learn a lot. I hope so. We need to unlearn a lot too. True. Drogen, Baldes, John? Well, if I may say just a few words, I'm here more to listen than to speak, to be honest, and that's why also Dino invited me. But I'm very, very pleased or fascinated by your trusted advisor concept. And I have realized that it's something that I as a person will be very interested in achieving in my striving to buy things and not to buy things too much and so on. So I think that I will participate if you organize another call. And thank you all for your thoughts. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for coming and listening and reflecting is great. It's perfect. Anybody else? Jamey, you want any last words? We're good. If we're all complete, why don't we wrap the call? We're kind of on time for that. Dino, thank you for inspiring this. It took us a little while to get to the call, but I'm glad we did it. Let's just book another one and get some more people in here. Let's get some people who identify as women and people of color and people of youth in the call. All of those categories are a bit underrepresented here. But this has been really fun. I really appreciate it. Great. Thanks, Jerry. Thanks, everyone. So we'll be in touch for email. Perfect. Exactly. Thank you. Bye, guys. Bye-bye.