Welcome to this session of Win/Loss week. The world's largest online event dedicated to Win/Loss analysis. The title of this session is Beyond the Black Hole. How Win/Loss insights have shaped Armor's strategic direction. This event is hosted by Clozd, and we'd like to thank all of our partners for their contribution to making this event a success.
Today, we're joined by Ryan Smith and David Lorti from Armor. With 10 years of experience, Ryan Smith serves as the vice president of product at Armor. Ryan regularly speaks nationwide on the topics of cloud security, compliance and developing secure cloud architectures.
In prior companies, he served as the founder, head of product or marketing manager for various SaaS businesses. We're also joined by David Lorti. David is the senior product marketing manager at Armor. He is responsible for marketing competitive analysis, sales enablement, and go to market for new Armor offerings.
He has long standing experience in the cybersecurity and technology industries, launching cloud security and managed security, security and risk consulting, threat intelligence, and incident response offerings. Ryan and David, thanks so much for being here today.
Thank you Braydon. Thanks for asking us.
Thank you Braydon. Very much appreciate it.
I'm excited to hear what you guys have to present to us today, so I'll actually just turn it over to you.
Wonderful. I'm going to start. This is Dave Lorti, and as Brandon mentioned, I'm a senior product marketing manager at Armor. I'm really going to just start off giving you some background on how we got here, how we started working with Clozd.
The best way I can articulate that is if you're familiar with the movie Interstellar, this is the black hole Gargantua, I'm big fan of the movie. And really this is the best analogy I can think of at the time when we were sitting in these weekly sales meetings, talking about Win/Loss.
And at that time it was really a conversation with our sellers explaining why they believed we won deals or lost deals. And we in terms of marketing and product management came out of those meetings, still feeling like there was a lot we really didn't understand. That a lot of the information was getting pulled into somewhere and into a black hole, so to speak.
And we just weren't getting at the real answers and insights that we felt we needed. As an organization, we were trying to figure out ways to approach and start driving insights. And that's when product and marketing made a recommendation to the chief marketing officer on looking at a Win/Loss program.
And at that point, the CMO told us to go investigate different options and come back with a recommendation. And so we did, we looked at a number of vendors, Clozd was obviously who we chose. We really liked the approach and the perspective, we believe would get as well as just an overall strong value as opposed to some of the other competitive solutions we looked at.
That's a little bit of the background of really feeling we're in this place where we just didn't have a lot of good information. And we weren't sure that the information we were getting was actually accurate the full story. And it certainly wasn't the story coming from a customer or prospect directly.
We set off on setting up a Win/Loss program and it was great. We were up and running in just a couple of months with the program with Clozd. And we put this together. It's really important to think about the market and competitive research and overall crusher organization.
And when we set up Win/Loss, the Win/Loss program, we could see that it's more of a qualitative research tool, but there are aspects of it that we can pull in from a quantitative research standpoint.
But we quickly saw that once we were getting the interviews completed and insights were coming, it opened up new channels for us to start pursuing, and looking at other questions we needed to answer.
And so this slide really conveys this idea of Win/Loss at the center of a market and competitive intelligence or research program that started spanning it, where we were doing other research around it. To build an even fuller picture of everything going on from a customer, a prospect standpoint across Armor the cloud security company we work for.
And I think that's a really good point David, that you bring up that I'd like to highlight here and just double click on, which is generally Win/Loss programs and the market are viewed almost as a sales tool. For the sales organization to quickly either give seller feedback on whether they are messaging things right, or whether there's the right pricing, or do you have the right target market.
But quickly Armor realized that Win/Loss as a program has far reaching implications beyond sales activity. It influences what we go do with the roadmap on the product side. It influences how we treat our customers operationally, or how we engage them in onboarding and support or customer experience programs.
And to your point David, it allowed us to expand what was initially a sales heavy program, driven by the sales team to more of a company strategic program and portfolio program for the company, that allowed us to not only get insights that were relevant to different parts of the business, but expand a research arm of business.
Most into these other areas like NPS cap, et cetera, that you're going to double click on. But for me, that was incredibly important, transition for the company is that shift from viewing it as a sales tool, to more of a corporate strategic objective.
Ryan, I completely agree with you. And it shifted us to be, where we're starting to be really more data driven, insights driven than we had been. One other thing I'll call out on this slide with the arrows here, which is interesting about Win/Loss is not as you look at these interviews and you look at the overall messages and takeaways from the program, but you also, it gives you ideas to probe in these other areas that you see here and research angles.
At the same time it also validates some of the things we might see, whether it's seller surveys we do, or a cab that we conduct. It also validates some of those things that we might see from that. And so again, this is just showing you a program of how it looks at Armor, hitting on these different sides and really Win/Loss, being a centerpiece of it all here.
Ryan, you hit on it and you talked about how this was really spread across the organization. And this right here is absolutely an accurate representation of how far the sharing of the interviews and the dashboard and the insights is across organization.
From the CMO who owns the overall program to reaching the product yourself, your team across the technology office and our customer support and the CRO of sales. It's pretty far reaching here.
And beyond it being far reaching, I think one thing that we found early on that was really important to the success of the program, was having executive sponsorship and executive buy-in to doing Win/Loss and the value of Win/Loss.
If we did not have the support of our CMO initially, but then all of the executive leaders you see here, every single one of them are in the portal. Every single Win/Loss interview gets ported into the executive chat room within our chat system.
If they didn't feel that this was an important company initiative, then it wouldn't have permeated across the organization, across the departments and down to those levels. Grab yourself a champion, make them loud and heard, but then ultimately what you'll be able to build within the organization with that champion mentality is, this organizational shift to this is an important strategy and program for the company. I can't overstate that enough in terms of our success, was that executive buy-in and to why this is valuable.
Absolutely. And I've even seen in as recent as a few days ago where I've even had down at the lower level, a seller actually requesting us to cut a prospect where there was a last deal. And they want to know more about why.
And that was something that met our thresholds, that we would put it on the list, but it was interesting just to see even a seller approaching us saying "Hey, I'd like to make sure this gets on your radar for the Win/Loss program."
As we go here, we really wanted to provide a little proof to the pudding here. And this is really just a view of our admin panel in the Clozd portal. And on the left here is really all these different people who will have access to look at the different interviews and the dashboards, and each color represents a different team within the organization.
And this is just one screenshot I've got another screenshot, separate showing more teams. Just gives you an idea as how far across the organization we're sharing this information. We're not trying to hold it Clozd, there's a lot of value in sharing it.
What we're going to do next is just hit on some key areas where we see benefits and value from the program overall. And Ryan, I'm going to ask you to answer this question, but in terms of the answers that we've gotten from the Win/Loss program, what do you think it tells us that we've gotten a lot of value from?
Yeah, I think a great question. The first thing about a Win/Loss program, or approaching getting answers to questions about your business. Whether you have pricing questions, or strategy questions, or what features should I go build, or what message should I go to market with. You want to learn all of these things about your business.
You also have assumptions about all of those things, going into it. And so I think one thing that Armor encountered was we have a lot of smart people who had a lot of opinions, a doubt pretty key areas of our business. How we should price, how we should go to market, what we should build.
And while they had good market insight and strategic thought behind that, it wasn't until we implemented a Win/Loss program, that we were able to validate or invalidate assumptions. And I think people had to be comfortable coming to the table with here's our thoughts, here's where we think we're going to gain insights, here's what we think those insights are.
But I think both ways we've learned sometimes those insights for what we thought they would be and sometimes they weren't. And having the almost empathy and the ability to take that feedback and internalize it, whether it validates or invalidates that assumption for you is important for companies to do.
When you're trying to get to that answer, you have to be open to what the program is going to ultimately tell you. I think the second thing that I've learned is that why you win is just as important as why you lose. A lot of people, when they think of Win/Loss, they think of it in terms of the loss.
I lost this prospect, I want to know why? Which competitors did I lose to? Which price? But why you win and why people are fanatical about the problems that you're solving for the market, generally tells you a little more about product market fit, in my opinion, than sometimes some of the loss information.
I think when I've thought about the answers it's gotten, so I've thought about it in a couple of ways, which is how can I hone in on that central product market fit question of I'm building the right things for the market.
But then two, as I look to get answers about the business, and it's not the same answers quarter after quarter. There's new things we want to learn about the business throughout the year. And we can pivot the Win/Loss program, the questions, the interviews, to maintain consistency across central themes, but allow us to strategically gain insight into pricing product, whatever the problem of the day is that we're trying to probe or not probe.
I don't know if you all in marketing Dave, have gotten any answers that are uniquely valuable to you, or where it's been the most valuable to you in your side of the business. But from my side of the business, I think it's been [inaudible].
I think one of the things that's been really helpful is there's a lot in the dashboard in terms of Clozd will classify different messages in there, different areas that they feel that each interview is hitting on.
And of course we're reading those interviews and full dialogue as well and making our own judgements. Some of the things that have been really valuable have been where you start to get a sense of a matrix, that helps to describe why we win, why we don't, what are some attributes.
For instance, we realized that we might do better with one of our products in our portfolio with organizations that were a little less savvy in terms of the cloud at one point, but that also had an urgency behind it. Whether it was compliance or something else that they felt was really sensitive to secure as a cybersecurity company.
And we could see that in our other product where we dealt with more savvy organizations, in terms of cloud security and their urgency was at a different level. It sometimes opens up these perspectives that you can literally map on a matrix and really get a stronger feel for who exactly do you do well with, and which part of your portfolio versus not.
And that was and continues to be really insightful for us as the marketplace changes, as our offering portfolio changes, as our customers evolve. And we see different organizations approaching us. Ryan, I'll just hit you up for this one as well, but I'm curious, what types of use cases or pains, things that we hadn't thought of you thought that came out of these interviews?
There's a couple of things for me as the head of product that, I quickly was able to validate or invalidate features on the roadmap, or areas that we thought we needed. We would always hear from sellers hey, we're losing because we don't have X, or we're losing because we don't have.
This gave me quantifiable data to say "Hey, actually, instead of anecdotally, how many of these conversations are we actually having on a day to day basis? And were those product pain points the true driver, or were there other strategic things for the company, pricing elements, et cetera."
For me, it was which of the pain points of our customers truly are the ones that we should go invest in next on the roadmap, was my first insight from the use case perspective. The second thing that I thought was really interesting and that I learned on the product side was, generally we think of security or any problem these days as a technology problem.
If I only had software to solve it, and then that software had these features, then I would be able to rule and conquer the world. And I would never have a security problem ever again. That's not the case. What we figured out through these interviews, was that a lot of these customers were I can go buy technology every single day.
There's the Armor SaaS platform, there's these other SaaS platforms. What's hard for me is how I operationalize those. Once I have the tool, what do I do with it? How do I implement it simply? How do I get my team trained on it, so they don't have to disrupt their current workflows? How does it make their current workflows more efficient?
And so what it caused us to focus on, is not necessarily building the next greatest whizzbang technology feature, because our customers didn't care how we solve security for them. They just cared that we did so in a way that was simple.
What that allowed us to do is focus on building out more of a platform that helped with those operational elements, also while handing them the tools and getting the tools in their hands. And that shift between a pure software product, and more of a software platform where people can go accomplish things with security and compliance.
I thought that was incredibly valuable and insight that we wouldn't have gotten anywhere else, because all we were hearing are features, point products, point solutions, point things to do. And that was not the pain of security for the teams.
And so for me, that was probably one of the most valuable things throughout this whole process that we've learned with Win/Loss program. Back to you, I know that how you communicate value against those pain points as marketing this job.
How have you been able to take the use cases, or the pains that we've identified in product and message to our customers, maybe in some new ways, just to highlight the advantages with the Armor platform and solving some of those things?
I think the use cases are really valuable, because ultimately it's how are organizations using us or looking to use us, and understanding those use cases. And that was one of the areas we wanted to explore when we set up the program, is what are they doing when they come to Armor? And when they trust us with an application data, what is that and what are they doing?
Getting insight on the highest level use cases, and then hey, here's some more specific things that they're doing with us. And some driven by compliance, some driven by the focus on security. They're doing something interesting within the organization. All of that allows us to then feed right into sales enablement, positioning and messages that actually hit the mark.
That show we get the nuance of what organizations are looking from us for, that we're speaking their language and we must know what we're doing, because we're talking effectively about that.
That's what I see is gold is just better perspective on the use cases that they're trying to come to us with. And of course they're trying to get an outcome related to protecting those use cases from us, or helping them comply. But that was always gold for me.
And I think it's helped our Salesforce even transition from being more transactional in nature, where I have this product, I have the skew. How many of it do you need to really a solution selling framework where it's more customer, tell me about your problems and your environment.
Now let me talk about why my platform helps go solve those use cases. And so I think that's been incredibly valuable for us as well, because nobody wants to buy a security software like used cars. They really want you to be a trusted advisor and the insights associated with this program that we learned, have allowed our sellers to transition to more of that trusted advisor model framework.
This next area I'll take the first crack at. But what was interesting I found in this whole enterprise was early on when we were setting up this program, we had to make sure sales was okay with us doing this. Because I'm one of the reactions sales has is hey, maybe this will air dirty laundry and we'll get embarrassed.
And it was funny going through this because I really saw a couple of things stand out that I hadn't really expected. One was that our sales team, in a sense in the sales process was a point of differentiation. We heard from people who said "Hey, working with you guys was great. You know your stuff, I understood everything, you kept up with me."
And that was pretty surprising. It's not that we expected anything poor marks or any of that, but it was amazing how positive it was. It just surprised me. Part of that was the whole services that we provide and the expertise.
Organizations saying, "Hey technology you got is great, but I love what you got around it with your security operation center. I love when I need to get an answer to a question I have, I can find that." And that was another interesting angle coming out of this, that I thought pretty compelling is too.
It's one of those times when you hear something and you're in the middle of it all day, you don't think it's necessarily any different. And then somebody here is telling you, yes, it is different than what they're experiencing elsewhere. Those were a couple of things that I saw coming out of this.
I think for me, the big thing around positioning and messaging was this clash that Armor found itself in internally almost when we started this program. This takes a little bit of understanding of Armour's history as a business, but I think it's representative of something that a lot of businesses go through as they grow.
We talked to Clozd and Bradon about wanting to discover this at the beginning, which is we had a legacy business and a legacy product that we had gone to market with incredibly successfully. And it was one of the main revenue drivers of the Armor business.
As the market changed and evolved, some commodity pressures got put on that business, where it really had start innovating and other product areas, and other product lines to take into account some of those market pressures.
And so when we first started this program, some of those other product lines were taking off. But still you had the majority of the revenue, the majority of the people focused on that legacy business, that you're almost trying to act as a startup with this new business and product line.
Whenever that happens within a business, she'll always inevitably have a little bit of a clash of cultures or a change curve of the business, as it tries to learn how to adopt to that new business model and shift the revenue centers within the business.
I think one thing that Win/Loss allowed us to do is bridge the gap there. It allowed us to recognize that we were at our heart solving the same problem in both lines of business. We were just doing so in different ways, based on the changing market requirements that were hitting the cloud and the cybersecurity market.
And once we started thinking of it that way as a continuation of our story and an evolution towards getting better in the market, then I think that allowed our sellers to position both product lines successfully, where we could continue to keep the value prop and the revenue associated with the legacy business, but use that to fund high growth in the new product line in business.
For me, this shift from almost a services company to a product company, to a solutions platform company and all of the strategic and operational and cultural stuff that comes with evolving as a company that way. I think the Win/Loss program the center of that as what drove a lot of the insights, that allowed us to make that transition successfully.
Not only with our own employees, but as we messaged that to the market, as we built that new product, et cetera. That was for me, one of those key things from a differentiation and messaging standpoint, that was incredibly important was how we crossed that chazion quickly.
And when I think about the whole approach, because when we do our interviews, Clozd is probing a number of different areas for us. It's the product, it's the sales, it's the pricing, it's the marketing activity, it's competitive, et cetera.
Sometimes you'll see with internet interview, just a sense, but this is the data of the other value that I see from this as sometimes without the prospects or the new customers saying it overtly, you start to feel there's some messages to take at a higher level.
It reminds me of everything you've said here, where you start to feel there's something there that the customer is not articulating. That their pain is not fully emerged, or it's late in there, but it's there, you're catching a sense of something.
And to me, when I think about everything you just described, where on one side of our business, we're really plowing ahead with a new model in a sense. It's that, that feeds that. Because generally customers you can ask, if you said, "What do you need?"
They'll tell you something it's probably more incremental, but it's the underlying takeaways that I've seen in what you just described, which lead to helping us spot that there's something under the surface that's just not been well articulated.
They don't realize they've got this going on fully yet, but there's an opportunity there. And I as a product marketer, I find that fantastic to get those senses of how things might be shifting, how we might be able to capitalize on that.
Good segue you just gave Win/Loss programs do allow you to probe those different areas, whether its sales efficiency, or pricing, messaging product. But I think an important part in building our program that we've realized. And it's the difference between an internal program and having an external objective body help drive that program for you.
It's not just about asking quantifiable questions that allow you to easily slice and dice information into a category, because that's what you would boil it down to when we were doing it internally. Let's say there'd be a customer. The loss reason would be price. It wouldn't be price was too high next to a competitor, it wouldn't be what discounts did we try.
Actually price was an issue because budget got cold at the last minute, not that our price was too high. And so I think that there was just to say a deepness to that insight, or a completeness to the insights that we were getting that was missing.
While we may be probing in some of the same areas that we were before, one thing that's been incredibly value in building the program as to how to get the customer to open up. And I think that Clozd is excellent at this, but I think regardless of you doing it, having an external objective party who can get the customer to speak in their own words, speak comfortably, read the full transcript rather than boil it down.
While we do have that metadata categorization of this was price, this was a product gap, et cetera. You can really get the context behind that, rather than having some internal person who has not maliciously, but they have interests of their own, in terms of their employment and their success and their numbers.
You're getting a little extra insight there that's important. When I think of, for green different areas of interest, it's not just that we got to learn across the company, a lot of different things that we want to know. It's the trust that I have in what I'm learning, because it is the voice of the customer through and through.
And I as a product manager, I think we fall into the trap a lot of times thinking we know what should be built, or what the market needs. But until you hear it multiple times from customers, you really don't know.
I think that probing from the customer perspective and the depth that you get there in those areas of interest, has been probably the most insightful part of this experience in this program for me.
Just one quick thing to add onto that, which is I really like that when we feel a need to probe something we can. We can make adjustments to the interview, what have you and the Clozd has gone off and probed into certain areas.
If we want to know more about use cases or what's the technology that they happen to be, what's their environment look like, that was all on the table. We could do that. And that's always been beneficial because times change what I want to learn changes.
You need some consistency within your Win/Loss quarter over quarter. You're getting some of those dramatic elements that resonate across the business. But to your point strategically, you're evolving and growing as a company and you're going to want to learn different things at different times.
And what I like from the product perspective, is it almost allows us to align these Win/Loss, I'll call them experiments that we're doing with our product development experience, or the lean agile framework.
How do you bring Win/Loss into agile product development? I think that's the way you do it, as this quarter, I want to focus on feature gaps within the product. You have a bunch of interviews that are telling you about those feature gaps and the pain behind them and stuff like that.
Then I can take that directly into my experience and my team and say "Hey, go change this real quick, go add this little thing, solve this technical debt issue." And it becomes this feedback loop. That's very quick in not only learning insights from Win/Loss as a program, but then driving operational activity within the business, such as what you go focus on the roadmap or what experiments you're running.
I think the lean agile methodology that a lot of companies have these days, works really well with Win/Loss programs that you can iterate on, because it allows you to put a context behind the experiments that you're running on the product side of the house.
That's great. Makes total sense. And I was going to take this one on, but obviously this is more in your wheelhouse. And given where you're just talking Ryan, it makes sense to just segue into how the program has influenced Armour's roadmap overall?
I think for me, the easiest thing is are we building the right things and are we achieving product market fit in the market? What we're building fairly easy. Customers will tell you all the time "Hey, love your product, but it would be really nice if we had XYZ." The what you get some quantifiable data, which influences investments.
If I add that data along with product feature requests that we get directly from the portal to support requests, that I get to what our customer experience team is telling me, and I quickly identify where we should make investments from that.
But it also tells me the why of why people are asking for those features, which I think is ultimately more important. And it gets back to what I was talking about earlier around moving from a point product that solves point solutions, to a platform that allows you to solve the things about security that are hard operationally, and not necessarily worry about all the technology that allows you to get there.
I said that earlier, that was probably the most influential thing to our roadmap, was shifting the type of company we were from a services company to a product company, to a platform company, and giving the facts behind why we were making that shift within the market. And then backing that up with ultimately what we're building and nothing comes cheap.
Whenever I think about making an investment in what we got to go build, I'm looking at not just did I go build that thing check it off. But did I build that thing? How much did it cost for me to build it? How much time did it take to get that to market? And now that it's actually in market, is it successful? Am I making money? Or am I driving a pipeline for the sales and marketing team through the product? Am I actually being successful with what I do?
I think the Win/Loss program allows you to get more of the why not just the what, but the why behind, why you go do things on the roadmap, or why you make the decisions and the investments that you do. And it gives our CFO more confidence. When I go ask for money, it makes my CTO happy when we go build things that our customers love.
And then ultimately, it's getting our executive team, our board, our company to that product market fit that everybody wants, where we can continue to scale and grow a successful business.
One of the things that the Win/Loss, and Ryan talking about it, it's credibility. You go to a seller and you go to 10 sellers and you'll get 10 different answers on something. And so there's always a challenge of getting a more empirical view. But take that and you say, okay, this is what sellers are saying that we need, based on conversations with customers.
You're one removed and this is much more, it provides much more credibility validation that the choices you're making are right. And you hit on it as a product marketer. What gets me excited coming in, in the morning is hey, this opportunity to help grow the portfolio. And behind that get positioning and messaging where it's point on.
And we're driving toward a stronger product market fit. And then you're seeing all these cool things happen across your sales teams, or your partners in terms of the old bell ringing in the sales hall. That's what gets me excited. And so when a program like this feeding what we're ultimately going to market with, shaping that to me, it's awesome.
It makes me excited in the morning when I start my day. It's a selfish angle but that is a part of market, that's what gets me excited. Let's talk deeper analysis and I'll take the first shot here, but I'm really just give an example.
And I hit on it in one of the earlier slides, but we saw that things came out, we learn and glean things. Reading through the different interviews, seeing the classifications and playing around with the data inside the portal, Clozd portal.
It was also this idea, it opens up questions that you then want to go probe elsewhere in other channels of analysis. And I remember when we first started, we got the Win/Loss program shortly after we started looking at market segments, managed detection response. We looked at the MSSP side, we looked at the cloud workload protection.
And then we further dug into our personas. And then we did customer analysis and pipeline analysis and all that, and then brought all that together. And like I said before, it really was triggered by the Win/Loss, what we're really seeing and hearing. And it just opened up the organization.
I go back to that black hole analogy, where that was no longer the case. The company was operating on a stronger data driven perspective. And that's where I see a lot of the value in Win/Loss, is it's turning up things that we can then go off and do deeper analysis on or possibly shape. Also, we talked about the interview to probe something further, so that's one of the big benefits I've seen.
For me, it is that black hole analogy. I think we've talked a lot about where you get insights, pricing, sales, efficiency, funnels, messaging, and product features, et cetera. But it's what happens when you get that information. Now that you have that, does it get sucked away into the black hole and you can't take action on it, or are you able to actually take action on that analysis?
And I think the reason why the big difference between the internal program that we were doing before, and then having the external driver to this, and how it's grown out from that initial just pure Win/Loss to these other programs of ours.
The reason why it goes outward now, versus into a monthly meeting that never led into any action, was because of the depth of analysis, the depth of insight that you get. And its what I said. It's a one word, it was price, it was competition, they just didn't like me.
Whatever it was, these are the words the customer is saying and these thing and this thing. Even if it was price, you just learn so much more coming from here, than what we got from our own recollection, our own memory, our own analysis.
And so for me, that's really the big thing here is that, how do you turn a black hole into a big thing. And I think that's ultimately what happened is moving it from internal to external. It became something that was a vacuum within the sales organization, to something that as you saw with just the first page of our portal experience in our users.
And that we have people from executives all the way down to the most operational of people, across departments that now get this information pushed out to them, and then they can go operationalize it in these other programs of theirs. For us, that's really the value.
That's everything we wanted to cover here with folks on, listening to this. But Bradon, I'm going to turn it over to you. Ryan, thank you very much for the conversation. This has been another great interaction. Bradon, I'll turn it back to you.
Thanks guys. This was awesome. Loved the conversation and the back and forth and really the insights. And it's really amazing to see how much Win/Loss is touching the entire business at Armor. It's hitting so many different parts of the organ, so many different departments and really making a ton of decisions.
I love seeing that. It's been great to work with you guys over the last couple of years as we have. And so, thanks so much for this. And we want to thank everyone for joining the session today, and we hope everyone has a great day. Thanks a lot. Bye everyone.
Thanks. Bye everyone.