What’s New in Funding News?

You’ve spent months pitching investors, navigating due diligence, and finally closing your latest round of funding, only to realize that announcing it is harder than ever. With over 3,300 VC deals per quarter and a shrinking pool of dedicated venture reporters, your news is fighting for airtime in a saturated market. On this episode of FiredUp!, we address the frustration of silent launches and explain why the traditional embargoed press release is giving way to the media exclusive. We dive into the evolving playbook for funding announcements, teaching startup marketers how to pivot from simple statistics to high-impact storytelling that captures the attention of investors and customers alike. This week, episode 131 of the FiredUp! podcast is about what’s new in funding news! 

Download the Multiplier Marketing Megapack today. Exclusive offer for all our listeners — get all our Startup Guides in one go! Over 50 pages of advanced tips and advice that dive deep into content marketing, search advertising, and marketing attribution.

In this episode of the FiredUp! podcast, the Firebrand team shares the differences in funding announcements in recent months and actionable steps you can take right now to maximize your chances of your funding announcement being reported on. 

Morgan and Chris discuss:

• The Shift to Exclusives: In a world with fewer reporters covering financing, the broad embargoed pitch is losing its effectiveness. To anchor your news, focus on securing a high-impact media exclusive with a reporter who understands your niche.
• Storytelling Over Statistics: A funding amount is a statistic, not a story. To get covered, you must provide the raw materials of a narrative—including your team's unique background, proprietary data, or a provocative point of view on where the industry is heading.
• Target "Unconventional" Outlets: Don't limit your reach to traditional print magazines. Some of the most impactful coverage in 2026 is happening in industry-specific newsletters and hot digital broadcast outlets like TBPN.
• Transparency with Your PR Team: Your communications team needs more than just the deal size. Give them full visibility into your company’s threads—the small, interesting details that can be pulled into a larger, more compelling story for a time-strapped journalist.
• Put in the Work: Raising the money is a relief, but the announcement requires its own dedicated effort. Be open to creative storytelling angles that might not make immediate sense to a founder but have been proven to cut through the noise.

Before your next announcement, identify three human threads in your company that have nothing to do with your valuation. These are the hooks that will help your PR team secure the coverage you deserve.

Thank you for listening! Tune in to all the episodes for practical tips on crushing your startup marketing goals. Don’t forget to follow, rate, and review the podcast, and tell us your key takeaways!

CONNECT WITH FIREBRAND:

Firebrand is a startup marketing agency. We help tech startups secure outsized marketing outcomes on their path to growth.

Youtube

LinkedIn

X (Formerly Twitter)

Work with Firebrand

Apply to Be a Podcast Guest

Transcript

Morgan McLintic: 0:00

Q4, 2025 there were 3300 VC deals in the US. That's about 35 every day. And at the same time, the number of reporters covering venture financing is going down. So what does that mean for funding news in 2026 that's the topic that we're going to cover today. Hello everyone. Welcome to fired up, the podcast for marketers working in early and late stage startups. Hello everyone. Welcome back to fired up. It's great to see you. My name is Morgan mcclintic, and I'm joined today by my co host, Chris Albrecht, Hey, Chris, how are you? Hey, doing great. Great to be here. Great stuff. So today, Chris, we're going to talk about funding announcements in 2026 there is a ton of funding going on. And as I said in the intro there, the number of reporters covering it is going down. So let's just open up with if we look back just a couple of years, what did a typical funding announcement look like then, compared to what they look like today?

Chris Ulbrich: 1:11

I think the big difference between past and present is that today, you are seeing many more percentage wise funding announcements come out as exclusives. It's by no means the only way to do it. You do still see some funding announcements pitched under embargo to multiple publications, but as the number of publications covering this kind of news shrinks the reporters are who do cover it are getting more open and more foot forward about about just setting the expectation that if I'm going to cover this, I'm going to cover it as an exclusive. In the past, you would often for rounds that were of good size and that were in an industry or a vertical that had a healthy trade press. You would often see the trade press cover the funding as well, and to some extent, that still happens, but you see fewer and fewer trade publications that are worried about covering the news on the day, covering funding news as breaking news. I would say, if you even go back to, I don't know, maybe 2010 2011 when you still had a decent number of green tech companies duking it out, and you had reporters who were assigned to the green tech beat, and they were following the blow by blow of who was up and down in that industry, then they would actually want the funding news as A scoop, because they were covering the companies as competitors. So in that case, it could make sense to pitch under embargo. Now, for those of our listeners who aren't aware of the distinction, and with an exclusive, you are giving the story ahead of time to only one reporter. That reporter is the only one who will publish when the news comes out, and generally there's an understanding that they'll have the story for at least a little while that day before anyone else gets to talk to an executive or so on. But certainly they're going to get to break the news under embargo. The other way, you provide news under in advance, you give the news to multiple reporters on the condition that they all agree to hold the news until a certain day and time that is agreed in advance. So the exclusive is a simpler approach. In some ways, it solves a lot of the logistical problems in managing any kind of major announcement, because if you're only working with one reporter and you need to change a detail or correct a detail, there's only one reporter to inform, it's relatively easy to get confirmation that the change has been registered. Back in the day, we might sometimes have 1020 publications under embargo, and if you had to change anything, it was a real exercise, and it was pretty nerve wracking. You get

Morgan McLintic: 4:01

more changes, though. Now, don't you, rounds seem to extend and be closing later and closer to the announcement, so the actual number that you're announcing often changes the day before, as you're getting other tranches are coming in and or other investors are getting into the cap table there. So you've got fewer reporters to deal with maybe only one, but there does seem to be a little bit more variance in the actual numbers than you used to get.

Chris Ulbrich: 4:27

Yeah, it's true. In my experience, the structure of rounds is getting more complicated. It's either that or it's possible that all the rounds I worked on early in my career were more complicated than anyone was letting on, but they just said it's a $35 million Series B, and that's all we talked about. But now, for whatever reason, the deals that we're seeing are often combinations of, say, safe notes, and there are, like, secondary funding rounds and then the primary. And sometimes it's it debts and. Included, and there's a question about whether that is really reasonable to include in the total amount of investment. So we're seeing more and more rounds where you're sometimes just announcing investment, rather than saying it's a series B, or your headline says investment, and then the details are broken down in the release itself. It feels as though, from our point of view, the structure of the rounds that we're communicating to reporters are more complicated than they used to be. And I think that is probably, it's probably fair to say that's a change, at least from the comms perspective over 20 years ago.

Morgan McLintic: 5:39

Yeah, because we certainly like we try to drive for what is the primary funding here, not necessarily the secondary, which obviously isn't additional funding that's buying out existing shareholders. And the concept of debt is slightly different, right? And so ideally you don't include that. So unpicking some of that is really important understanding, okay, what are we because you're going to get questions about this, and so having it clear before you go in is important. But often there's some calculations that need to be done there, because the numbers are big and and they're moving, and so it does take a little bit of time to sort of button that

Chris Ulbrich: 6:19

down, yeah. And I think that the main consideration from a comms perspective is just be clear about what you're communicating and then communicate it clearly, yeah. And so it is surprising sometimes how difficult it is to get a clear answer about what is the number we're announcing here. It can be fuzzy. It's like, well, if we depending on how you count this investment or that investment, we could come up with these different numbers. And from my point of view, I want the number to be accurate, defensible and as high as it can reasonably be, because you don't want to leave any interest on the I mean, the value is not everything, as I'm sure we'll discuss, in general, the larger year round, the better for its media value. But at the same time, you don't want to exaggerate. You want everything you say to be defensible, and you want to be able to explain how you got to the number you did.

Morgan McLintic: 7:11

That's right. Why do you think that funding announcements are sort of less newsworthy, even though the amount of like, actual money invested is going up?

Chris Ulbrich: 7:22

That's a really interesting question, because it takes as the assumption that funding news is less newsworthy. I would come at it a little differently, which is that funding news is harder to place than it used to be. It's harder to find a home for it. Funding news has always been the point at which it's almost an excuse to cover a startup's trajectory, right? You're checking in with the startup at different points in its maturity. So the story that you're telling at seed is mostly about the vision and the idea. It's Series A, it's about you're starting to talk about traction. It's Series B. You're definitely wanting to show traction like Series A. It's more about, okay, we have a product now, and we have some early customers, and this is the kind of enthusiasm. Series B, you really want to start showing that you have some momentum in the market. So there's momentum numbers that evidence of traction becomes more important and onward and upward, right? So I think that as a news hook, funding functions the way that it always has. Most reporters that I've had a chance to talk to about this, and just looking at what reporters will have said about it over the years, I think that most of them would say that the funding, unless the funding amount or the origin of it is extraordinary. If it's some super hot VC that everyone wants is tracking, or if you have some kind of nine figure Series A, it's just an insanely high seed round or Series A, that's just, it's eye popping that demands attention on its own. Yeah, the funding itself is a hook. It's a way into the story. But rarely is it the story itself. And so I think you've always when pitching funding news, I think that the conventional wisdom, which is true, is that you need to think beyond the number. You need to think about what kind of compelling story you're telling about the founders and or the company in that moment. And some funding stories are more like I said, more about the founder's vision. Some are more about incredible traction and the impact that the company is having, disrupting an industry, or some combination of the two. Again, that's part of the strategy, where you get clarity before you start pitching about what the actual interest in the story is at this moment in the company's development, and that's what you go out with. You don't go out half cocked saying, I've got a $45 million round. Will you cover me? Maybe that'll work, but your chances are low. Now to go back to the. Original question, why is it hard to place funding news right now? It's simply that there are relatively few publications that still cover it in depth that will do a full on feature story. And I say relatively because the universe of publications that cover funding is changing all the time, not just in new publications of the same kind, closing up or opening up, but the nature of coverage can change today. Coverage of your funding round might look like an influencer talking about you on a Tiktok, right? It might at the same time, I would say that even as traditional funding focused outlets like TechCrunch have been contracting over the past year, and some which is obviously like a big deal for startups and for agencies like ours who work with startups. I think we've seen top tier outlets like Wall Street Journal, VC Pro and fortune becoming more open to covering rounds at the lower end, at the series A and at the series B, and sometimes even the seed generally, that is when you can tell a really compelling story on top of the round. So it's not like we're seeing fortune covering rounds the way TechCrunch used to, where you might see a single reporter turn out five funding stories in a single day. Just incredible productivity. You don't really see that anymore, but for whatever reason, these top tier publications are, they are becoming more open than they might have been, I think five, six years ago, to covering innovation at an earlier stage of maturity, as long as there's an interesting story to back it up, your company is illustrating some trend, or you're doing something really fascinating to the audience of the publication. So in some ways, I think top tier publications are becoming a little more startup friendly, whereas traditional and so they're taking up a bit of a slack that used to be the space that, like VentureBeat and TechCrunch worked in, but they're doing it a little differently. The other thing that I would say is that a lot of that action, if you can put it that way, is happening in the realm of newsletters like the fortune term sheet newsletter is featuring startups now, and it probably always has, to some extent, but it's doing it on a reasonably frequent basis at this point. Again, there's a real focus on storytelling there, but that tends to be happening within the context of the newsletter. And the reason I bring that up is because there's this whole growing universe of journalists who have left traditional publications, like Alex Conrad, the absolute OG of VC coverage. We used to run it at Forbes, and now he has his own outlet, his own newsletter, upstarts. I should actually call it a media company. It has multiple arms at this point, and it's growing into a pretty elaborate operation. So funding coverage today doesn't necessarily appear in the publications that everyone has been familiar with over the last 20 years. If you're watching Silicon Valley on HBO, if you go back and watch the world that they were operating in was the world where TechCrunch was at the pinnacle of the startup ecosystem. That's not what it looks like anymore. TechCrunch is still important, still great journalists working there, but I wouldn't say it's the center of attention the way that it used to be, just because there aren't as many journalists covering as many beats as there used

Morgan McLintic: 13:36

to be, right? And we'd be remiss about talking about that change. It used to be a big milestone to get your piece in TechCrunch, and now perhaps getting on tbpn Is that milestone for a young company that's just emerging and when they're announcing their funding?

Chris Ulbrich: 13:53

Yeah, that's a really great point. And so when I was talking recently with a partner at one of the VC firms we were working with for a funding announcement, the partner asked, So, what's your broadcast strategy? What is your visual strategy? What's your graphic strategy? And on broadcast specifically, what the partner was thinking about was tbpn, right? Tbpn, for those not familiar, it's a sort of Sports Center style daily live broadcast that covers Silicon Valley like sports, and it's a mix of news and commentary and founder interviews, and it's become pretty much the hottest ticket in Silicon Valley media, and that, maybe more than anything we've discussed so far, reflects the shift between what a funding pitch looked like five years ago compared to now. It really is much more podcast focused, more visual focused, more what we might consider social focused the materials. Create need to be optimized for sharing on Instagram or Tik Tok. You think about your communication, your marketing materials, differently than you did five years ago, where it was really just previously about the press release and maybe a blog post, right? I feel like the LinkedIn post is the new blog post. You can still do a blog post if you want, but I think there's the sense that if you're publishing on a platform that is not socially active, you're just speaking into the void. You can post on your blog and you can link to your blog, but increasingly, we're seeing LinkedIn and Instagram and even Tiktok emerge as the communication platforms of choice, even for these major corporate announcements, of course, x as well.

Morgan McLintic: 15:48

Yeah, so having a video was not really a part of the brand assets that most companies did a year ago. I would say a video, or certainly some kind of graphics, moving graphics, is right up there so that people can celebrate that. So, yeah, that's another, that's a big change.

Chris Ulbrich: 16:04

Yeah, that's another really great point that in the past, a video, a founder, video, celebrating the round, would have been a kind of above and beyond sort of strategy, like you would look at that and say, if you know, you have the wherewithal to pull that off in the time required, then great, and will help you do it, but you know it's going to take some doing, and you know most companies just didn't want to take the time and trouble. But now I think that kind of visual material is getting to be seen as table stakes, right for even a series B announcement, right?

Morgan McLintic: 16:43

You might get more views on that than you did on even if you get a piece in TechCrunch or venture B, to be honest. So super important. Okay, so we've talked a bit about the change in the media. There is less TechCrunch and VentureBeat, although still very much in the frame, maybe that gap is being filled by some of the larger business publications. Is being filled by some of the newsletters being filled by tbpn, and outside that it's being filled by direct to audience, social videos, etc. Let's talk a bit about the types of companies when they get their funding. Most funding is going into AI those rounds are, in general, enormous, but not every company is an AI company. Does that make it hard for companies that are sort of AI adjacent to get coverage for their rounds?

Chris Ulbrich: 17:38

From a practical point of view, I think it's hard to say, because while very few companies are anthropic or open AI every so they're not AI companies in that sense, they're not raw AI providers. But I don't know that we work with anyone who is not positioning themselves in some way as an AI powered, AI enabled solution. So just from a practical point of view, it's hard for me to comment on how it would be if you were selling something that had absolutely no AI in it at all. I imagine reporters might find it refreshing if they were on a beat where they could still cover such a thing. It's tempting and maybe even realistic to say that at the moment, AI is the story in technology one way or another, and reporters will say, Oh, my God, I'm so sick. It was like how they reporters would complain about another pitch that was Uber for something, yeah, or gig economy for right?

Morgan McLintic: 18:41

We see the sales force of this, the Uber of this, right? There's always the dominant category.

Chris Ulbrich: 18:46

So now, pretty much everybody is a version of something that existed before, but now with AI. And so I think it would be pretty hard to tell a compelling story without the AI side of it, not because the AI is compelling at this point, but because it would be hard to make the case that you are doing anything really innovative or on the cutting edge if you weren't AI forward, nobody's going to give you coverage. Nobody's going to find you interesting simply because you're using AI. Everybody's using AI. So that's not going to set you apart, but I do think it would be tough to sell a story that wasn't AI focused, just because the innovation level might be perceived as being low. But that said, if you did find yourself in that position, I would say, lean into it right if you can possibly make the case that you're intentionally steering clear of AI for some reason, pitch it as a contrarian story. Yeah, that's

Morgan McLintic: 19:47

a good idea. Let's talk about early stage rounds. There was that period where people wouldn't announce a seed. They'd wait for the A do seed. A is a seed, even is an a round still. Meaningful sort of PR moment as the bar moved on, most, I think in q4 most rounds were Series C. Those are much bigger. There's more rounds at that level. There's just so many A's at the moment. Is it worth announcing a seed at this point, or should just hold it?

Chris Ulbrich: 20:15

I think we're at a point now where, unless the amount is completely outrageously disproportionate to what people think of as a typical a or seed, then the amount I'm going to use the term table stakes again, just I think you have to cross a certain threshold to be relevant, especially at top tier publications, they're not going to cover tiny rounds, unless you're a celebrity founder or you have some celebrity backers, so you have to get across the threshold. But after that threshold, until you get to something totally outrageous, I think the amount is not actually that important. It's so much more important is the story, because relatively few reporters are covering funding as a commodity story anymore. It like, I don't mean at all to denigrate the stories that the TechCrunch was turning out, but back in the age of zurp, when you had, I don't know, 12 reporters writing four or five stories a day, and a lot of those were funding stories there. They had a process, and they only had so much time to dig into what made the company unique. And you could say that those pieces were more commoditized than I think funding news tends to be today. And so I think that if you have a round that qualifies, that gets over the threshold of the publication you're trying to pitch. That's where you really need to lean into the story and, in some cases, into the backers. Because a lot of the publications that still cover and this has always been true, but a lot of the publications that cover VC backed companies are at least as interested in the VC side of it, as they are in the company side of it. So we'll sometimes find that the story about how the funding came about might be a key component of your pitch, or it may be that a reporter has a strong relationship or special interest in a particular VC firm, and that might if you are aware that's the case that they're paying a particular attention to this firm, that that might help your pitch. That's something you take into consideration. You need to pull all the threads together that could make this compelling beyond the number and look, that has always been true. Reporters who cover funding would have said this 10 years ago. I just feel like it's more like so many things in PR now. What's different between now and then is that it's the same thing that was true then, just more so

Morgan McLintic: 22:49

and so the very fact that you've closed a deal, almost regardless of how much it is, doesn't mean you're going to get a coverage. Because you're one of the 35 that closed that day, you've got to pull in on the story. And I would imagine that means at a later stage, like at a seed stage, but it's all potential, and you've got fewer threads to pull on and less for the reporter to dig in and talk about, ordinarily, not always. How are they going to fill their 800 words about this? Because you're a few people who got together, and you've got an initial product, and you know, it's all in the future, and you're going to do this, whereas at a later stage, there are more threads to that story. And so just,

Chris Ulbrich: 23:26

yeah, more customers, more potential for an exit, yeah, maybe,

Morgan McLintic: 23:32

yeah, there's just a bit more. Oh, we didn't know whether we're going to make it, and now we think this, that's just a much more. There's a bit more chance for rise and fall.

Chris Ulbrich: 23:39

I would just make one note to sort of round this out. So like Ali Garfinkel, in term sheet, had a really interesting piece, I think, in late January on this very topic. And she said, Look, I'm seeing all these rounds. There's practically no number that would really stun me anymore, because some of these rounds, like 100 million dollar seeds and series A's, if they're not commonplace, they're not super rare anymore. So I think she says I've practically become numb to the size of the round. Now that doesn't mean that the size of the round is irrelevant to her, but I think that is, in some ways, what she's describing is characteristic of a lot of reporters who cover this space, which is to say that, okay, yeah, the round has to cross that threshold that we discussed earlier. But once it's passed it, you don't really distinguish yourself by raising a lot of money. It really has to be about the technology, about the potential, about the founders. You have to find something else of interest to make it worth writing

Morgan McLintic: 24:41

about right? A$50 million Series B isn't twice as interesting as the $25 million you've jumped a hurdle and it's normal, and it looks like you've got the credibility and the backing and the wherewithal to fulfill this mission, and there's money at stake, which is why people are interested in this. But it doesn't matter. It's not. Twice as interesting. Okay, I get that. So you know, our startups, in the light of all this, are they changing the sort of structure of their announcements so that they go out with the funding, but maybe combining it with another product launch or some other data, knowing that, okay, this is a chance for the spotlight to shine on us, but in order for it to shine us, we've got to have a bigger story to tell, and we've got to stand out. I'm going to beef this up a bit with a new product as well. Should you combine them? That sometimes

Chris Ulbrich: 25:33

can help? I think that can help. It very much depends on how much the product adds to the interest of the story for the reporter that you're trying to pitch. So, as we off so often say on this podcast, and so we often say NPR, the truth is it depends. And so if you are selling some kind of B to C product, where you're selling to a mass market and it's an app, or it's a device that is going to be just has a sort of gee whiz appeal to the average reader, coming out with a new one that is announced alongside your funding. News could be a great accelerator for that coverage, because that is a story that the reporter might arguably cover on its own, and on top of that, you it gives you some options to segment out your pitching and bring more reporters into the story on the day. So you might offer the funding news as an exclusive to the reporter, but put product news under embargo to a bunch of product oriented reporters who might not really have a special interest. You have to be careful there, because when you are giving anyone special treatment or special access to information, you have to think about how that's going to land with all the people that you didn't give it to. But often with product news, there is a group of journalists that wouldn't cover the funding story anyway. They're not going to mind being left out of it, because it's just irrelevant to them. They are covering product for product's sake. And so in that case, you could pitch that under embargo, pitch the funding as an exclusive, and you could hope to see the kind of same day coverage that we might have associated with funding news, say, 510, years ago, where you have multiple stories hit the same day. Much more common these days is that the funding news hits on the first day in your exclusive publication of choice, and then more hits come out in the coming days, as trades pick it up, as Vc newsletters write about it in, you know, the day after, maybe sometimes two days after, something like Axios pro rata, or the VC new money newsletter at Wall Street Journal, you get the blurbs coming out over a couple days, but then your vertical trades are usually not in a huge rush anymore to get corporate news out. So you might be in some kind of news roundup later in the week for them. But if you combine the product news with the funding news, and you pitch that product news under embargo, and all of stars and planets align, then yeah, you can hope to have that sort of flush of same day coverage that used to be more common with funding news back in the day, right?

Morgan McLintic: 28:26

And I guess it gives the reporter who is geared up to cover the funding a little bit more. You know? It's another paragraph in that they're not, they're like, Okay, also one today they are announcing this new version of their database, which does, and they're not an expert in that area. It's another proof point in traction to flesh that story out, and that might make it a little bit more appealing and a bit more interesting, right?

Chris Ulbrich: 28:50

Also potentially gives outside like VCs and outside experts that you might bring into the offer as sources for the story. It gives them something to talk about, so an industry analyst who has been briefed on the product might be able to speak to the value of that product as a sort of a trend in the industry, or as part of this company's roadmap. Analysts, because they work with so many companies, they're often reluctant to anoint one, or say that one has really stolen the march on the others. But the more that they have to latch on to in your news, the more ways they can potentially participate in the announcement and have something to offer a reporter. It just gives you, as I think you talked about, threads to pull on. It gives you more threads to pull on potentially.

Morgan McLintic: 29:36

And so it's important to sort of understand, okay, you've got your exclusive coming out, maybe on the day. But then, you know, the trades, like, maybe you're in legal tech or whatever, they don't feel the need to cover it immediately, particularly on the product side, like product news can drip out. And so I think it's a big run up to this day, and it can often feel almost anticlimactic, where, like, Duh, here's the piece that we've all worked on and then, but that. Is it? Then that piece can drive, especially if it's top tier media, it can drive a lot of other media follow on, because people, they read it, and they go, Okay, I'm going to cover this too. And so you can get downs on that. But it just is interesting to see that there are some cadre of media who need to cover it. They're competitive with each other, and they feel but others, the funding, the newsness of it isn't that critical to them to cover because their audiences are not tracking it on a daily basis. Okay, so just as we wrap here, then Chris, if a startup, they're raising their series, A, B, I don't maybe C, they're raising it today. What are the things that they should do to sort of actually break through if they want to maximize their coverage and break through the noise.

Chris Ulbrich: 30:43

Yeah, it's wraps together a number of the things we've discussed over the course of this conversation. First, you need a plan. You need a strategy, and you start the strategy by knowing what you're working with. So get clear on the amount that you're announcing who's involved with it, and that's the first step for your PR team to be able to develop a strategy, to figure out what the relevant reporters are, what material they have to work with, what other threads they can pull into the story. So get clarity, so that your PR team can tell the story clearly. Second, think beyond the traditional airport magazine outlets, some of the most impactful coverage for funding for startups these days is coming in newsletters, in unconventional but super hot broadcast outlets like tbpn. Don't think Is this a story that I could see in print that is one option, but don't get wedded to that, because it's not necessarily the most impactful option anymore. And then third, really be open to getting creative with your PR team about the storytelling. Just understand that as big a like, what a huge relief to have raised this round in what can be a challenging climate. There's so much competition you're justly proud of having raised this, but the truth of the matter is that to take that next step and see that round covered, you are going to put in and your team is going to need put in more work to make it relevant, to make it interesting. The number itself isn't going to do the job in all likelihood, just be open to putting in the time and coming at the story in ways that might make sense to your marketing and PR team, but might not make immediate sense to you, because they've seen what works, what falls flat, and they have a reason.

Morgan McLintic: 32:46

Brilliant, great advice there, Chris, thanks for joining me talk a bit about that, and thank you all for listening. We will see you all again next time you.