Growing Ecommerce – The Retail Growth Podcast

Google Email Leak Explained: What’s coming next to Google Ads?

• Smarter Ecommerce • Season 4 • Episode 12

Share episode

In this solo episode, host Mike Ryan tackles the opaqueness of the digital advertising industry. He then reveals a previously confidential email from two senior Google executives. This internal communication confirms that Google’s “PMAXification” phase is over. While their old approach was to push Performance Max as the end-all solution, their new strategy is a broader, more complex one centered around a “holy trinity” of campaigns called the PowerPack.

Mike breaks down the roles of the three campaign types in the PowerPack—Performance Max (conversions), Demand Gen (consideration), and AI Max for Search (expansion). He then provides a critical look at how these technologies work together in reality, exposing the redundancies and potential for self-competition that could make a “hygienic, well-organized” account harder to manage than ever before. This is a must-watch for anyone who wants to look behind Google’s curtain and understand where your ad spend is really going.

About smec (Smarter Ecommerce):

At smec - Smarter Ecommerce, we specialize in transforming business goals into optimized ad campaigns. With over 16 years of experience in Google & Microsoft Ads, our intelligent software and expert services help retailers achieve superior results.

We're committed to giving you the tools and insights needed to stay ahead in the ever-evolving world of digital advertising.

Make sure to follow smec - Smarter Ecommerce for more performance marketing insights:

SPEAKER_00:

Hello and welcome to another episode of Growing E-Commerce. I'm your host, Mike Ryan, of Smarter E-Commerce, also known as Mech. Unfortunately, Chris is on the road today, so he's not able to join us. But um, you know, we've got a chilly morning here right now. There's a chill in the air. If I look out my home office window, there's this wall of white fog. Um the poet John Keats once called this the season of mists and mellow fruitfulness. But when I look out the window, I'm reminded of the opaque advertising industry. So you never know what kind of day it's gonna be, though. Will the the sun heat up and burn off the fog and we'll have one of those brilliant, crisp, clear days? Or will it continue in this direction and start to get rainy and dark? I'm gonna talk about this absurd metaphor. Don't worry, I'll drop the metaphor, but I'm gonna move on and talk about Google's power pack today in some detail. I'm gonna talk about a previously confidential email in some detail that you've maybe never read before, but I think it's super important for understanding the current strategy of Google Ads and the direction that Google is headed as a platform. We can also compare how that might diverge from a competitor like Meta. I'll introduce you to the cast of characters, what is the PowerPack, which campaign types are involved there, and give you, let's say, Google's view on how this whole thing works together, as well as sort of a contending view about how things might not be as harmonious as it seems. And yeah, then we can talk about those conflicts and maybe also some resolutions. So that's on today's agenda. I'll try to keep it moving along briskly and we'll see where we go from here. Okay. So let's let's start off. I'm gonna kick things off by saying that um just over a year ago, I was on stage talking about something that I called p-maxification. And I mean, I believe I've talked about that on this podcast before, but for new listeners and as a refresher, my p-maxification thesis was that Google Ads was being rebuilt board by board, like the ship of Theseus, in a more automated fashion, until eventually this whole ship, this whole advertising platform would have nothing in common with the original pieces. Um, and the key tool that Google was using in this end-to-end automation strategy, this rebuilding of the Google Ads platform, I argued, was Performance Max. And so what we saw at the time with Performance Max was that different campaign types were migrating into Performance Max. And so this was happening within Google Ads as a platform that it was absorbing all the other ad serving mechanisms. Um, PMAX is, I'm sure you know, it's this crop cross-network campaign type that can serve anywhere across Google's surfaces, all in one hand. And then there was another kind of meta dimension to this as well, or a higher level view on this, where every other platform was racing to build their own PMAX. So P-Maxification was occurring not only within Google Ads, but also in the industry at large. Um, and I still think there's a lot of validity to this thesis, but I'm going to share with you an email that I discovered actually a while back, a leaked email written. Well, let's see, there are two emails in this thread. They're between, for context, two senior executives in Google's sales organization. And I'll remind you that while Google kind of it's labeled as big tech, it builds itself as a technology company. It has, of course, these major consumer products at its core, like search and maps and Gmail and everything. I would argue that it's ultimately a sales and marketing organization. It is an advertising organization. So these two senior sales executives had a very interesting exchange. The first email was 8:36 in the morning on May 22nd, 2024. So May 22nd, well, what's important about that day? Well, it's exactly one day after Google Marketing Live, which is one of along with Google I.O. These are Google's two big conferences of the year where they share their technological vision at I.O. and that sales and marketing vision at GML. So first thing in the morning the next day, I'm not going to name these executives for viewers. I'll put this email on screen, but I've I've redacted their last names. But executive A expresses his concern that he says, we doubled down unambiguously, that all our AI goodness is PMAX. And this was concerning to him. He felt that the sales team, the general consensus among the sales team is that they don't believe demand gen is going to be a thing. So this was a newer campaign type for Google at the time. And he also said that anything that is not PMAX is structurally disadvantaged. So, you know, I think this reflects, this is very aligned with what I'm saying with P-Maxification. If P-Maxification is absorbing this and that, I don't think I'm the only person who had that impression on the market. Um, and even within Google sales team, they felt that there was this structural disadvantage. If you're not PMAX, you're nothing. PMAX is this, it serves everything else. Why do you need demand gen when PMAX is serving everything else? And Google was going all in, as he stated on this messaging at Google Marketing Live just last year. Um, you know, this is where it gets really interesting, is the reply which came at end of business the following day from Executive B. And Executive B said that yes, we're pushing PMAC super hard. But then he says that was that it's our previous strategy. He explicitly says pushing PMAX super hard was our previous strategy. And this to me was a big light bulb moment because you know I was on the stage in September of 2024 saying P-Maxification, this is what's going on. But actually, internally at Google, already back in May, they're saying that was their previous strategy. The question comes up okay, if if that was their old strategy, what's their new strategy? And that's what we'll be talking about in more detail as we go on. So executive A had mentioned DemandGen, that's going to be part of this. Executive B then goes on to talk about something that wasn't publicly known at the time. It was then called Search Max or PMAX for search. And we all got to learn about search max uh as a new technology went into beta more recently, and now it's going into general availability. But now this is a technology that we call AI Max for Search. And we'll go on to get into definitions and a quick overview for people who might not be familiar with these. So don't worry if your head is swimming a little bit right now. We will cover it. Um, but he was talking back then about search max or PMAX for search, and he said the UI and branding can be pretty flexible. It doesn't matter too much. Um, so indeed they renamed this new technology to AI Max. And as a sidebar, I mean, of course they did. Like AI Max for Search is basically, I was talking about how Google had been migrating campaign types toward PMAX. We know that they focus grouped the idea of migrating keyword search campaigns to PMAX. The reception was presumably very bad, and instead they chose to bring PMAX features over to search. So that's this new technology. They were so you can see why they were calling it PMAX for search at one point, search max. But you know, I mean it's marketing, right? And AI is just if it doesn't have AI in it, then shareholders aren't interested, whatever. So there's also ads coming to AI mode and AI overviews, these new AI surfaces in Google. So they decide to call it AI Max for search. You gotta love it. But I think we can't understate the importance of this email. This idea, just to recap, PMAX going all in on that. That's the old strategy. And now we're gonna take this broader approach. So we'll cover that with the with the power pack as we go on today. But yeah, I mean, what jumps out to me there is I've talked about it on this podcast before. I I call it the the Khrushchev thaw of of PMAX. You know, there's this very kind of Cold War relationship between advertisers and Google ads, unhealthy relationship for both parties. Um and you know, things started to change. Google took a different tone and they started opening up. And yeah, you know, if we if we now move from some fall metaphor at the start, let's jump into a like a Cold War spy metaphor. These emails are like, you know, getting leaked diplomatic cables or encrypted comms from from what was going on in the Kremlin at that time. And we find out that indeed this this it's not imagined. So now it's funny because we've seen structural changes, like somewhat early, we we heard this idea about structural disadvantagement or uh between or structural disadvantages between campaign types, and like standard shopping campaigns have very clearly been structurally disadvantaged in the past. PMAX had a default priority over this campaign type and it squashed standard shopping campaigns. But already a year ago, that restriction got lifted. And you know, even more recently, we see that Google even has sales decks encouraging people to take hybrid approaches where they're running shopping campaigns and PMAX campaigns in parallel. And when we get to conflicts later on, we'll touch on this. But I think they realize that more is more. I think they realize that they were getting stuck at a certain point in their strategy with PMAX. Executive B mentions, by the way, that nobody was that excited about PMAX in my advertiser conversations. At best, it was like they were willing to go along with it. And he mentions that there's real frustration there. So this is this is to me a very fascinating look behind the scenes. And I hope you found it as fascinating as I did because I spent a few minutes talking about it. Sorry if not. But let's go on to the next part of this conversation, which is the cast of characters. Um, back at Google Marketing Live last year, they talked about the PowerPair, which is Google's combination of back then of Performance Max and then standard search campaigns with broad match and smart bidding. This was their philosophy of a well-rounded Google Ads account. And you can understand that these YouTube sales executives and demand gen people trying to push that, anyone in display and video, that they're frustrated hearing that all you need is PMAX and search. So this year at Google Marketing Live, I think we've talked about on this podcast before, but for new listeners and to get in more detail, they rolled out the PowerPack, which is a new combination, a holy trinity of Performance Max, Demand Gen, and AI Max for search that we were just talking about a second ago. So to run through each of these, I mean, the role of Performance Max is to find conversions across all Google channels or across all Google networks, whichever way you want to look at it. Um, some people would say that, you know, Google Display Network is not a channel, it's a network, but whatever. Google can look at display network at Gmail, at Discover, at YouTube, and course shopping search anywhere. And again, its goal is to find conversions. When we first kind of got pitched PMAX a few years ago now, I think at least my understanding, and I think I would argue as well, I don't think I'm so special. I think it was the broader market understanding was that this was a full funnel campaign type, and it was very much like the right ad at the right moment, and that these things were kind of accumulating to conversions in sort of a multi-touch attribution way or data-driven attribution way, if we look at it that way. But Google has more recently started talking about PMAX in different terms. They talk a lot about instead of return on ad spend, marginal return on ad spend. And what that means, it's much more similar to the way we've understood meta advertising to work for a longer time now, which is that basically Google's always going to find the next cheapest conversion that it can find. Um and so it's not necessarily this. I think to me that comes across differently than this multi-touch full funnel thing. In fact, Google has been very clear that PMAX is not full funnel, it is bottom funnel only. It is in the purchasing phase, is where it's really meant to operate. And it's and it's yeah, just gonna always try. If it's if it's making that bid on a Gmail placement, it's because it estimates that's where the next cheapest conversion can be found. And if it's making that bid on a feed-based ad inside of YouTube Shorts, it's because it thinks it can find the next cheapest conversion there. So I will say that PMAX has a relentless performance focus. It it does well by the numbers and platform, but there's also plenty of low quality reach mixed in there. Spam inventory, you might call it. Um, all you need to go is look at your placement reports for these campaign types, and you'll see YouTube placements that you're not thrilled about, display and search partner placements that you won't be thrilled about. And so there is a feeling that there's some fluff hidden in there. I think it's one of the biggest criticisms like, could we not trim some fat on this campaign type? Maybe these things don't even accrue that many costs, but it's just bloat, in my opinion. Uh, so that's still my biggest staining criticism of PMAX is the traffic quality. Despite the fact that on average it works, I think that it could work on average better. That would be my contention. Um DemandGen is also, you know, this is a rather mature campaign type that's been around for a while. And the big kind of how I would describe DemandGen. So Google calls it a mid-funnel campaign type, right? They've said that PMAX is bottom funnel. Demand gen is supposed to be mid-funnel, and it's the successor to Discover campaigns. People always, I think, liked the idea of Google Discover campaigns. They wanted this to work. And Discover is now not just exclusive to like in the Google app or on mobile, it's also on desktop. So Google has put some work into Discover ads and Discover, but it could never really scale. It wasn't quite there. And meanwhile, I think Google was quite eager to sell more YouTube ads, and they also had this burgeoning business in the form of YouTube shorts that needed to be monetized. At first, it was a competitive answer to TikTok and their short short-firm videos, but then they, you know, it moved from defensive to okay, let's start raking in the cash. And so where Demand Gen has landed is that they they brought in a lot of YouTube and they also brought in video action campaigns. So it's by my estimates, and when I look at the data, the modern day Demand Gen campaign is about two-thirds YouTube, and then maybe a quarter of Discover. And then it's just a small amount of all this other things that are because it's again, it's a cross-network campaign, it can serve almost everywhere that PMAX can. So it's then there's some Gmails in there, map ads, display network, etc. So, you know, its role, if PMAX's role is to find conversions anywhere across Google, Google's channels, DemandGen's role is discovery and consideration, nurturing that kind of feeding the funnel across all of Google's channels. Um that's the core philosophy to it. So I like that it's very customizable. You can do channel targeting, which is not possible in PMAC. So you can then actually build like a YouTube Shorts only demand gen campaign or a Gmail only. It can build some very interesting campaign flavors or campaign types. So it's quite powerful in that regard. Um, but I think by default, its reach quality is decreasing a little bit over time. I certainly had the feeling at the start that they took all the premium placements from PMAX, and that was all in demand gen. That's all there was. There wasn't display network in there, there wasn't some of these other things. So, you know, where I have this criticism of the traffic quality in PMAX, I felt that DemandGen was the cream of the crop. But now, yeah, there's there's display network in the end. And yeah, we we we can get in an argument about if that's a good development or not. But then to introduce you to AI Max, this is the newest, the least mature, mature technology. Um PMAX, when it rolled out, felt very half-baked, very immature, and it's it's matured now, they've rectified that situation. You know, never bet against Google. It's always a moving target. AI Max to me right now feels quite immature. If we talk about Google's goal, excuse me, PMAX's goal of finding conversion across all channels, demand gen's control of nurturing across all channels, the role of AI Max is very expansionary. It's basically to take your search campaigns and find traffic that you might be missing. So, again, it's also in search of incremental conversions, not in the sense of marketing incrementality necessarily, but in the term in sense of on top to what you're already re reaching, an increment in that sense, you know, another step on top. Um, it also has a high degree of customization, like demand gen. And so that's something I appreciate about it. A high degree of transparency. So, in this sense, I'm gonna we're gonna do a throwback if you can if you can remember all the way back to our is the fog lifting or not? The fog seems to be lifting with these campaign types in a lot of ways. Um, but what I don't like about it, I said that it's expansionary and it's often kind of aggressively so. Or, you know, I've said this a million times before, AI is not strategic. It doesn't know what it doesn't know. It can't be. And so let's think about this way. If you already have a mature search campaign, you're targeting the stuff you want to be targeting, you even have broad match activated, you're you're finding a lot. So, what are the odds that this technology, AI Max, is then going to find something that you missed? Um, I so I think it probably adds more benefit to less established search builds and less benefit to more established search builds. Because in a more established search build, you might find that it starts looking in strange places to find something because you're already looking in the likely places. And as a couple of examples of that, this is something I've heard more often. And I'm hesitant to make blanket statements about this technology because it's new. But I've heard more often that AI Max is bidding on competitor terms, and this can be okay or not. That is your strategy, you know, if you if but if you want to bid on a competitor, but you might want to control that and have you know specific bidding and stuff like that in place. So it's fine, it's it seems in most likely to me that it's finding that because you decided you don't want to be there, you don't want to bid on that. And now it's finding this valid pool of demand, but there's a strategic reason why you weren't doing it. AI is not strategic, it doesn't know that. Similarly, I've seen it scale into search partner network in some cases, like massively, and or at least it tries, you know, it's getting a lot of impressions there. The intent is so low that not necessarily a lot of clicks or costs or conversions come back. Might also look on brand traffic. And again, like it just sometimes it's it's looking maybe a little too hard to find a solution or to find more traffic. This is what it's built to do, to be expansionary. But I guess the core message is that you need to put guardrails in place for that. And you know, we talked about that on a past episode, but I'm just adding the context for new listeners and people who haven't listened to that episode. Um, I'm gonna tie this all together. I'll put a graphic on screen for people who are watching, but don't worry, I'll describe it if you're not. Imagine one of these classic marketing funnel diagrams, you know. It's the shape of a funnel, it's in slices, usually there's awareness, consideration, purchase, whatever. It doesn't matter. So picture one of those in your mind, and then imagine at the bottom of that funnel, there's this kind of radiating circle, a circle down there at the bottom. Okay. So at the top of that funnel would be Google's display and video inventory. And uh in my diagram, I focused on the video stuff like video awareness, excuse me, video reach, video views, because I think that YouTube is way more important to Google nowadays. I think all of their owned and operated inventory, that's where they're investing the most. We know from disclosed statements that they've said, like from the DOJ and so forth, that they've said that they think the open web is dying. And I feel like display network has become this sideshow add-on in many cases. But so at the top of that funnel, we've got, you know, video reach campaigns, video view campaigns, this upper funnel YouTube activity display as well. Um, and then there's the mid-funnel where there's demand gen. And as we've said, they view this as mid-funnel campaign type. And that's again cross network. It's not just YouTube, it's a lot of YouTube, but not just. And then at the bottom of the funnel is PMAX, which again, cross network, also has a lot of YouTube in it, by the way. There's just a lot of YouTube in Google Ads nowadays. Then that expanding circle, the bottom that I mentioned, this would be the expansion activity of AI Max, which will also include AI overviews and AI mode, but that can also be served by other campaign types, campaign types like PMAX, standard shopping, standard search with broad match. So it's not the exclusive territory of AI Max, but they called it AI Max. They're trying to plant their flag in there. So it's just a market positioning thing, you know. So I think it's like a rather coherent view of how all these campaign types, one leads into the other and the way that they interact. And um, and you see, you see, in a view like that, that no, PMAX is not the full funnel campaign. I really need to dispel that myth. It's just it's really located down the bottom, and everything has its role in there. But my my problem is that the reality is much more conflicted than that, because there are huge amounts of I we can decide if we want to call it redundancy, if we're gonna be more negative, or if we want to be more neutral. There's huge amounts of overlap in ad inventory, in technological features. And I'm a skeptic that that this works in the way that Google imagines. I am skeptical that there's not cannibalization cannibalization going on. I'm skeptical that we don't run into situations of self-competition, even though Google says that doesn't happen. But I think in any case, it's not proper account hygiene to just switch on all this stuff and let it all run as is. And as an example of that, I want to talk about some of the feature duplication or triplication that occurs with AI Max and PMAX and search campaigns. So if you're in a more like tactical, marketing tactical operational role in your company, this stuff will might make a bit more sense to you. And if you're more of a leadership role, maybe this is gonna sound like word soup to you, but I hope it'll be eye-opening to you to understand what's going on here. So the entry point here would be the oldest of these triplicated technologies that exist three times, and it's dynamic search. And dynamic search has been around for years and it's been quite popular, I think, especially in e-commerce. I'm not, I don't know, I'm not into lead gen so much, but in e-commerce it's been it's been popular. And the basic premise is that um your ad headline will be automatically generated and your landing page will automatically be selected to match the the query, the user's search. And these are these elements of what Google calls like quality score. They look at this this kind of triangle of rev of relevance between the landing page, the ad, and the search term, because this should be a kind of a satisfying and expected experience for the user. So they don't feel so they don't feel like the ad was not relevant to them. Like they turst, they type something in, they want to see an ad that makes sense based on what they've searched, that matches their search results or their expectations. And then when they click through, that that experience on the landing page all matches, so that there's one clear line through it. And DSA automates that. So there's that's called dynamic search. Then inside of PMAX, there is final URL expansion, which is basically dynamic search by a different name. And then inside of AI Max, there is text URL optimization, which is basically dynamic search by a different different name. So, or by another another name. So we have the pretty much the same technology, three times by three different names in three different instances. And two of those instances are inside the power pack, they're protected because PMAX is in the power pack, AI max is in the power pack, dynamic search ads is not in the power pack. I think it's probably gonna go away because three times must be too many, right? But you know, this feels very redundant to me to have all three of these running. I don't believe that they can each be incrementally finding new stuff. And there's there's to me only the risk that they are competing with each other. So I think you need to, based on the setup that you have, or the based on the setup that you want to have, you need to carefully think through. I mean, as I said, AI Max is customizable. PMAX has a level of customization in it. Um, there's dynamic search, you need to choose which tools from the toolbox you want to use. And that's an example of the the technological overlap or redundancy or conflict that is to me inherent to the power pack. Um and then I also mentioned that there's the ad inventory. So we mentioned that demand gen is cross network and that P Max. Is cross-network. And just to help you understand here, PMAX and DemanGen, so PMAX serves search and shopping, which is part of the search network as well. And that's most of what PMAX is, or a very big part of what PMAX is. But then there's then there's everything else. I don't know how else to say it. Then there's everything else. So both of these campaign types, PMAX and DemandGen, serve YouTube, Display Network, Discover, Gmail, and Maps. And the thing that stops them from just completely conflicting with each other, as according to my understanding, is their position in the funnel, right? That demand gen is mid-funnel and performance max is bottom funnel. It's very conversion oriented. But the thing is that you can make demand gen conversion oriented as well. And you can also add in a product feed to demand gen. So it's not just, so then you're not just overlapping with the asset parts of PMAX, but you're also overlapping with feed-based. And then if you tell demand gen, as a lot of advertisers are doing, that you want to go after conversions, and especially if those conversions get down funnel closer to purchases or so on, you can even put a target row as on demand gen. I don't think that's a good idea. I just don't think so. Because to me, you're then dragging demand gen down into the lower funnel. Um, and then you have these two things with very similar resources that they draw upon, like the product feed and the assets that are provided to them. And they're serving across all the same channels or networks or whatever you want to call them, and they end up having rather similar goals to each other. And so my philosophy right now is that you should let demand gen be demand gen and keep it mid-funnel, purposely so. And you might not like what you see. Um, but its goal is as a feeder for everything else. So please let it do it, let it do its thing. I think we can find other strategies here, you know, like um those those long tail products that you have in PMAX that they're they're not getting a lot of traction because they don't have demand. Oh, we have a thing called demand gen. Like, what about that? What if we do product sourcing and feed some of these these products that are sleepy upward to demand gen? A proposition of demand gen is that it should generate brand lift, it should generate surge lift, and um let's assume that that can also work at the product level. So this would be an example like fee feed each other, you know, um find ways, keep it more mid-funnel, find ways that they can support each other's goals instead of having the same goal. And it might be hard to measure. That's that's a fact. But I think that Google has added that conversion focus there because they really have positioned Demand Gen as a competitor against paid social advertising. And let's face it, they're talking about meta ads here. Um, and and meta is able to do both things, it's able to generate demand and it's it's able to also generate conversions. And and I think that's where they're they've opened this can of worms by making the comparison. And I think they lack the commitment, and also advertisers, we lack the commitment too sometimes to just let it do its thing and be what it is. Um I I have a whole flow chart for the managing the relationship between demand gen and p max, and I'll put that on screen, but I would just uh I guess I'd I just say you have channel selection in demand gen or channel targeting. So like maybe you can be smart about like if demand gen, if you don't, because you have your channel report in PMAX, maybe you can use demand gen to target the gaps in PMAX or think about this intersection of product and channel. Um, I think you can find these targeting strategies and they are actionable to a certain extent because I do think that the fog is lifting and we're getting more controls, more reporting in these campaign types. The cruise chef, the fog lifting, whatever. I'm not good with metaphors, just take it. Uh, I think there's one more thing I wanted to say about demand jumbo. What the heck was it? Yeah, I don't remember, but I mean, I think we can wrap this up like to summarize everything, draw it all back together, and bring it to a close. I do think that p-maxification was and is a real trend in the industry at large, at Google specifically, but we know that Google has moved on to a new strategy. And that is, you know, they found that they needed more tools to achieve what they wanted to achieve. In the end, it's pursuing the same agenda, which is end-to-end automation. But unlike, you know, Meta, we've talked about this on the podcast before. Mark Zuckerberg has this very end-to-end automated view where there are no intermediaries really in-house or external. It's just the tool runs itself and you look at the numbers and you're happy. Um, but Google's going in a different direction. They're adding control of the back end, they're adding transparency back in. And so I think that's I think that's the correct direction to go in. But we see that this view that they're presenting to us, they're giving us this trio of technology. And they they have this concept for how this all fits together in a night, nice, clean funnel and from awareness down to consideration and like, and then with these expansion layers built in. PMAX, we have to say, is also very expansionary. It will cause you to serve in lots of places where you wouldn't appear otherwise. Demand gen, they're all it's somehow like this funnel logic, but also everything's trying to expand as much as it can. But ultimately, I think when you think through the what is happening, the way these campaigns interact, the features that are that are at hand, you'll find that it's not as simple as advertised. Um, and that there's still a ways to go here. And I think that probably for a lot of listeners, that's okay. There's a job to be done here, and we might be glad about that. But I would also take it as a just think critically about what Google's telling you here. Let's test these technologies. Originally, I said, yeah, AI Max is definitely going to replace TSA. Let's let's test, let's test it, let's check it out. But it feels a little half-cooked to me right now. And I think you don't need to rush to be a first adopter or an early mover or whatever, but let's just take things one step at a time, calmly, and think carefully about the role and interactions of everything that's going on in an account. I actually think in some ways it's harder than ever to have hygienic, well-organized, logical account with good campaign structures and everything working the way that it should. Um and yeah, I mean, if you want to learn more about that, reach out to me or to the company. It's something we can help you with. But I guess we'll leave it at that. So I think hopefully we'll be back together with Chris on the next episode. And I hope you enjoyed this. Hope it was informative and educational. If it was, please leave us a review or a rating or recommend this episode or the podcast in general to friends, coworkers, whoever. We really appreciate it. This has been another episode of Growing E commerce brought to you by Smarter Ecommerce, also known as SMEC. You can learn more at smarter e commerce.com. Thanks, and we'll see you next time.