Inside CVC: The Playbook Problem: Yaron Flint on Fixing Innovation From the Inside

Innovation inside large companies often runs on instinct, scattered pilots, and wishful thinking. Yaron Flint joins us to explain why so many corporates still lack a true playbook — and how a more structured approach can turn chaos into clarity.

Listeners will hear Yaron discuss:

• Why he wrote Innovative Business Development and the gap he saw across global organizations.
• The four pathways for bringing innovation into a company — and why partnership remains the most underused.
• How competitor-to-competitor collaboration can actually accelerate maturity.
• The fragmentation of CVC in Europe and what it takes to build strategy-driven venture programs.

We also explore leadership blind spots, the tension between long-term innovation and short-term markets, the slowdown and reset of the “future of mobility,” and what executives should prioritize as they build the next decade of innovation inside their companies.

Transcript

Steve: 0:01

Welcome to InsideCVC, the podcast that brings together leaders in innovation and capital investment to explore the trends shaping the business of corporate venture capital. I'm your host, Steve Schmidt, and together with Philip Willigman, we're speaking to corporate investors, entrepreneurs, and ecosystem builders driving the future of innovation. InsideCVC is brought to you by UPath Advisors, helping corporations and startups unlock sustainable growth through strategic partnerships. To learn more, visit uPath.com. That's the letter u hyphenpath.com. And to catch up on all of our episodes, search InsideCVC on your favorite podcast platform or visit uPath.com forward slash podcast. This week we're speaking with Jaron Flint, someone who has spent years inside global companies trying to turn innovation from improvisation into something repeatable. He's lived the messy middle, the competing agendas, the pilot theater, and the spray and prey investing. And instead of accepting that as the norm, he wrote the playbook he wished every company had in his book, Innovative Business Development. We pick up our conversation with Yoran reflecting on what pushed him to take on the challenge of writing a transformation playbook.

Yaron: 1:22

I wrote the book from a point of necessity. When I joined Continental, basically I asked them, what is the playbook that you're working with? You know, how do you onboard companies? And they said, there's no playbook. It's trial and error. And I started really that strike me as really, really interesting. And I started looking around, and every company that I met, none of them had a playbook. So I said, if no one wrote a playbook about this, I should. And that's basically what I did here. And the idea of this book is basically trying to show that innovation and onboarding into companies can follow a structured and less opportunistic approach. Let's be frank, most of the companies out there, they do it from a very opportunistic level, you know, playing in the sandbox, they're not really have a structure behind it. And by applying methodologies that are learned from business development, because that's kind of a theme, that innovation eventually is the first step, and business development is the implementation or integration into the company. So by applying best practices from that uh perspective, you can learn and do things more structured. And that's the entire idea of the book.

Steve: 2:31

In the book, you describe four pathways corporates can take buy, build, invest, and partner. Which do you think are the most underused and why?

Yaron: 2:42

Well, if you think about this, it's basically the natural evolution of every company goes when they talk about external innovation. External innovation is when a company reaches a certain amount of point of saying, okay, I understand that I can't do everything internally. I need to reach out to the outside world. I need to learn from it, and I need to bring external know-how into my company. So the first phase is basically when you talk about build, it's kind of the lack of this understanding of saying I can build everything by myself. What I would do with these companies is just learn what they're doing and then try to mimic and build it by myself. Then when they progress on the evolution scale, they reach you to a certain point of saying, maybe I can't do it by myself, so let me buy it, still owning it. It's not a real partnership. It's still, I want everything under my control. And that's MA transactions that doesn't come from a strategic point of view, just buying things around. Then companies fail out or understand that they can basically, they don't need to buy everything because they might stifle the organization or uh you know they don't have the money to buy everything out there, so they start investing. And then they really start figuring out what do I do from a strategic point of view? What do I do with the portfolio that I have? How do I push them? How do I invest? And again, this is the natural evolution when you don't think strategically about things. Eventually you get to an understanding that the real value lies in partnerships, that the outside world has much to teach you, as much as you can teach them. And basically, by connecting or creating these real partnerships, you can generate something bigger than you can do by yourself.

Steve: 4:23

I reflect on the word partnership. And over the last couple of weeks, we've seen, I think, some pretty big announcements, right? Particularly in OpenAI and their partnering. One thing that occurs to me is you're seeing a lot of partnership between competitors. They look a lot the same. So, in in this sort of environment, where, to your point, companies are looking for partnership for accelerated growth and the other things you're talking about in innovative business development. Isn't there a point where doing too much partnership, and particularly what we're seeing now with many competitors, has some sort of negative impact?

Yaron: 5:00

So it's funny that you mentioned it because I just wrote a newsletter about this. That was my my last newsletter about rivals collaborating together. And basically, something that I did retrospectively, very smart, is uh start a newsletter uh aligned with the you know book, and then people discuss topics from the book and take it further, like this one. And uh, you know, people engage and ask questions and connect and then comment. And I highly recommend you to, by the way, to go through it because there's a lot of interesting topics around venture clienting, is corporate innovation, dead, things like that. And the rival topic is definitely something that I touch upon. And I think this is um kind of like I don't see it in the same way that you just described it. I don't think this is a negative aspect. When competitors align, it's the most mature level of partnerships. It's a real understanding that they can learn, even for someone who's a competition. That do you know topics in the outside world are bigger than them or they can solve by themselves and they need to align with someone else. And let's be frank, this will not kill the competitiveness. When competitors aligned, they align around a very small or niche topic. According to that field, even Nvidia and and uh and you know, Intel that just announced a large corporation, it's a very unique combination around a specific topic. It won't kill the rivalry, and the rivalry will still be there. But they feel in certain amounts or certain points, it makes more sense to align with someone, and not only startups, by the way, but large corporations like themselves to learn and do things together. And there's a lot of uh explanations that you can read the article where I go uh through that. But you know, going back to what you asked before, what do I see as the most unused, I would say, phase in this, it's exactly this. I think that the companies really don't understand the level or the importance of partnerships. When they say I do a collaboration, they look at this from an actionable point of view. I connect with someone, therefore I innovate. No, you connect because you really want to achieve something. So it's not the actions that you do, it's the real mentality and understanding that you want to partner with the outside world. And what you describe now is a great, great example of that.

Philipp: 7:25

Yaran, it's so great to have you on the show. Uh, thanks for joining us. Um, the three of us all have been working in the automotive space or advised automotive companies over the last, I guess, 15, uh, 20 years. I remember like 10 years ago, 12 years ago, when we were thinking about autonomous cars and the beginning of the future of mobility. Back then, I was at I was a strategic advisor. Steve and I, we we worked deeply on creating the future of mobility. Um, and we talked a lot about co-opetition and and and doing these partnerships. But back then, a lot of corporates were shying away of it because, as you said, they were maybe more transactional, but they didn't really want to share, they didn't really want to think about how do you create win-wins. I don't want to have this conversation about just automotive today, but if you think about where we are today, right? And we are in in between the US and Europe recording this podcast, but uh Europe being in a in a pretty, I'd say, like, special place when it comes to specifically the automotive industry or the industrial sector. Can you maybe describe where we are right now in the innovation landscape from your perspective in Europe and what what is going kind of like maybe has gone wrong, and and what are some of the opportunities you're seeing? How we can really, really drive innovation in Europe.

Yaron: 8:42

First of all, uh let me address one at a time. I think automotive is a great example because if you're talking about collaborations and competitions, they already started this centuries ago. You know, you saw the Toyota and Subao, Renoni-san, uh, Mitsubishi, Foden, Volksmarken, a lot of these corporations going on on developing the same platform. So this is kind of like already a standard in automotive. Uh, and it came through regulation, sustainabilities, and platforms that kind of cover uh problems from all around the sector and companies want to address together. I think eventually, and uh this is uh a great question, what you're asking about the uncertainty about innovation. This is exactly why I wrote the book, and this is why people engage with me, because there's a lot of uncertainty out there. There's so much models, and everyone is saying my model is the best. And they create a lot of confusions with executives. And some executives that read my book are basically saying, you know, it didn't teach me much, but it gave me a lot of clarity on what's out there and what's going on. And I think one of the interesting points, specifically from a European perspective, is eventually you have kind of, and I'm gonna be a bit a bit blunt here, if you if you allow me. I think there's a uh a real kind of progress between understanding that you don't know everything by yourself and willing to experiment. So if you look at the Asia side, they do understand that they don't know everything, but they're not willing to experiment. When you look at the US side, they don't understand that they don't know everything by themselves and they are willing to experiment, but they do it with without uh a strategic point of view. European falls right in the balance in between. And this is why you've been hearing so many buzzwords, because companies want to do it better, they want to do innovation in a more structured, less opportunistic way, either because they try, they fail, they want to do it better, or because they don't want to spend so much money. And a great example is the new ESO 56001 of innovation management. Where do you see your ESO companies in uh come in when there's a lot of confusion, no one really knows what's the standard or how to do it, and and ESO comes that says, hey, this is the format, this is how you should do it. So there is a willingness to do things in a more structured and less opportunistic way. And this is why you've been hearing all these discussion, buzzwords, and people kind of trying to figure out what is the best approach for them.

Philipp: 11:15

But isn't it isn't it funny that um I feel like in specifically in Europe, if uh if you come with experience and you know you have shown you have done it, uh, that there is generally first of like a pushback, right? Oh no, I we'll figure it out by ourselves. Uh and I I wonder if there is um if if there is a fear at the corporate VC level, but also at the CXO level, the CEOs, to actually say, well, we haven't done it properly, right? We haven't done it in a while, um, and we may need help. Uh or even maybe there is nobody at the board level really pushing to say, well, before you start doing a venture clienting unit, you need to explain to me what that actually is and how it's going to deliver value. Um, do you think that you know leadership in Europe um understands what it takes? And also, is there enough buy-in at the at the top level to really enable the units uh which are there to be successful?

Yaron: 12:13

Uh the straight answer is no, but it's getting there. This is exactly my point. So, you know, you there's a maturity level going on, and if you think about it, it's very much similar to what happened to product uh uh management or QA a century ago. Where everyone was talking about these buzzwords and the world wasn't real standard, and you've been around enough as as I am to understand this. And sometimes eventually it takes through maturity levels and understanding. Okay, we tried, we failed. Why? Could you explain why? What can we do better? The first thing that I came into Stanley Black and Decker, the first thing that they asked me is to explain what they're doing wrong, which is a very, very mature way of an American company, because usually American companies don't do that, right? So, you know, there is kind of a certain way of maturity in the market that pushes them to figure out, okay, we tried, we failed, we want to do it in a proper way. And that the three the fear of reaching out is because there's a lot of generic formatting out there, like venture clienting that says, is venture clienting really the right approach for me? Can I do something different? Is it investments? Uh is it the mixture? Who can give me the answers about that? That's the biggest confusion. And I think most of the venture companies that I've been talking to and consultants are becoming experts in this domain rather than venture clienting. They need to discuss on how this looks in a broader spectrum. Because a customer comes to them and says, I want venture clienting. And you ask why, and they don't know what to answer. So you need to explain to them, okay, let's sit back, look at how the landscape looks like, let's figure out why you want this, and maybe we can find a different format. So they become mentors rather than consultants. And this is again another maturity level of the market that I'm seeing and progressing. I think in 10 years' time, it's going to look totally different.

Philipp: 14:10

Interesting that you frame it this way, uh Jaron. I feel also a lot of people, advisors who are pushing some of these tools, they actually may not have have a lot of experience. They may not have had the experience being at the C level, sitting in a boardroom, hearing the questions and saying, well, this doesn't work.

Yaron: 14:30

They don't have the experience coming from the field. They build it kind of in a lab and think it it relates to everything that they do and they don't come with the problems. You know, one of the things that my CTO in Stanley told me, he said, Yahun, you know why I like talking to you? Because you've been in the trenches. You can see the battle scores. Everything that you say comes from experience. And this is what is lacking. You are lacking people who have been there, done that, wrote books about this, and now are mentoring other people to do it.

Philipp: 15:01

Yeah, I love the love the word mentoring. I think that's something where, you know, we we uh the three of us are lying. It's it's really about using your experience and also sharing some war stories, right? And I I do know a bunch of groups in in Europe where there is an individual, you know, who had this vision, I want to do this, right? And then they build it slowly, but didn't really have the have the support um to actually do it. And then these units failed, or they don't they didn't really have the strategic uh view.

Steve: 15:27

Your and I'm curious when you've you know listening to the conversation, and I think about how the dial has turned on Wall Street towards short-term quarterly performance. And we're talking about here long-term bets, right? Do you think as you see these companies, these partnerships, the speed of innovation and how that's scaling? There's a conversation going on now in terms of elongating the quarterly reporting to more like six months or even further out. Do you think we're going to see a return to some of these more long-term plays?

Yaron: 16:07

Definitely. Then they try to do things short inside. Now they're figuring out it takes time, but we need the external know-how. So companies are starting to bring experts, external experts. This never happened a decade before. Usually, when you wanted to run an innovation, you took an engineer from your company and said, uh good uh good luck, you're now the new innovation manager. And he knew nothing about that, he had no budget, and it basically was a PR kind of perspective where no one really understood what they're trying to do. Now companies understand that they need to pour content into that and do it in a proper way. Again, like QA and uh and the product management uh uh cycle happened a few uh years back. So companies are figuring out how they want to play and look at this, and they are understanding that this will take time, even the executives, by the way, but they understand that they need to do things differently and they need to do things more efficiently, and they can't go around and playing in the soundbox and throwing millions of dollars on it with no perspective like a spray and prey and hoping something will hit. They need to be more precise, kind of a sniper approach, right? And and targeted and aligning with the strategy. And this is where the there's plenty so much time and effort on this perspective. So you will see, I think, things in five to ten years that will totally change the industry of innovation as as as you see it today.

Steve: 17:46

So if you're an executive listening to that and thinking about the company you're leading three to five years from now and driving towards that future, you're sort of at this intersection, this vision of your company. What are three truths about innovation that that you would tell that executive?

Yaron: 18:02

I would say, first of all, if you're thinking about it, it's because your competitors are already doing it, right? That's kind of basically there are not a lot of things that create sleep deprivation for larger uh for executives than someone from the you know the competitors or that are doing it faster, more efficient. And and companies are figuring out already how to do it more efficiently in a better way, and you've seen results. You can't avoid it. You know, it's like uh eventually, like Steve Jobs said, uh, it's understanding that this is not a threat but an opportunity. If you don't understand it, you will be dead. And and you need to do it in a proper way. That's the first thing. So it's there, innovation, internal, external, what kind of model you want to do, that's debatable. But you have to devote time and effort to do it. That's that's a given. The second thing is it takes time. It takes time, and you figure out that there's no real ROI within one or two years. It can take time, it's hard to measure, uh, and but you will see an impact if you're looking at the long-term vision. And eventually, and the most important things that I think most executives have not figured out yet, you need external expertise. You can't just take an engineer from within the company because he knows the politics and expect him to deliver as someone who's been doing it for so many years.

Steve: 19:29

I'm curious, does that change if you're talking to an executive that's in the US versus Asia versus Europe? You mentioned earlier, you know, how companies in these different regions operate differently, think differently about innovation. I'm curious if there's anything that you might that might be different or unique to executives operating in a specific uh region.

Yaron: 19:49

Uh I think it was a bit harsh to put it into categories of US, Europe, and uh fair eventually, eventually days, because like let's say, like in Europe, in Germany, you have the traditional Middle Stunt companies who are way behind the large corporations who are more innovative and work in the landscape, you know, and have uh like uh I don't know if they're traded or have like executives from all over um the world. I think the the best way to describe it is the diversity in your executive uh board. If there's a lot of diversity there, then it means by definition that you're more innovative already, by mindset. If you see a very one kind size fits all and uh it's a copy paste of everyone in the executive board, then they're not there yet. And that's one of the most things, or ability, you know, the best ways to identify if the company is ready to innovate, yes or no. So I think there's a lot of trade-offs there. Usually, like I said, people from Asia or companies from Asia are very traditional in the mindset. The board is the same, they don't have a lot of diversity on the board level. Americans are starting to shift that and change that. And Europeans are the most diverse I've ever seen, really, even in Germany.

Philipp: 21:12

Staying the with the board, the Fortune 500 companies I served and I I worked for, um, they definitely had pretty diverse boards, I would say, um, over the last you know, 10, 15 years. But what I have not really seen on most major boards is actually some executive who has shown expertise in the innovation space, right? There might be somebody on there who has done a lot of big transformation, M1A deals, deployed billions of dollars. But um, you know, given the uncertainty we live in and um that for some industries, you know, innovation and you know, really, really thinking about what comes next becomes more and more important. I wonder, you know, what the role of the board should be, or should there be somebody on the board level who um has much more experience with with innovation or venture programs to really help steer the CEO uh into the right direction? What do you think on that?

Yaron: 22:11

So, first of all, when I talk about diversity, it's not like men versus women. That's not diversity as I see it in innovation. Innovation is diversity is different mindsets and different approaches. And you have like startup mentality who turned into executives, right? People who came from startups, people who came from other industries, and people who also didn't grow in the same way. And I think eventually this is happening. You see a lot of board members already very diverse in it. I see I know a few startup founders who are already sitting on boards of large corporations because they bought them or they uh they they thought they had something to uh to offer. Um, uh, you know, the same goes for people from various perspectives and various cultures. So it's getting there and innovation. What can we do? It was never run in a professional way. If you go 10 years back, no one did it professionally. I don't think a lot of companies are still not doing it professionally these days. So you won't have a board level who's been experienced with that. I think what is important is for them to have the vision and willingness and then to push the CEO to find the right executives that will lead the company forward.

Philipp: 23:27

Thank you, Jon. That makes a ton of sense. I fully agree with you. Talking about corporate venture capital, I have the feeling in Europe, and you please correct me if I'm having a wrong perspective, there's a lot of fragmentation around CBCs. There's a lot of small units doing tiny investments. Some are some might be strategic, you know, then there are obviously some which are like extremely financially driven, like a BMW I ventures, where you sometimes wonder why they're even, you know, why are they doing these investments? Is there any connectivity? Um, but can you you know share you know with with our uh listeners, is is there like in a way do we need to really rethink how we build CVCs in Europe? Is there maybe a coordinated effort needed between industry players to give more strategic focus to their corporate venture capital ecosystem?

Yaron: 24:18

Yeah, definitely. I think uh one of the things in Europe, and you describe it very uh very nicely, that they're very fragmented and very I kind of differ uh in my perspective. I don't think they're very strategic, a lot of them. You know, deciding to invest in companies is not a strategic decision. I had a very interesting conversation with one of the financial executives and one of the large uh OEM manufacturers, I'm not gonna name them, but he basically said, you know, Yelong, we tried to invest in companies in a strategic way, we never succeeded, it never worked out. And I said, wait a minute, when you say invested in a strategic way, what do you mean? He said, Well, we decided in the board to start investing in company. I said, so that's not strategic, that's tactics. Strategic is when you put it in front of the whole landscape and decide I want to invest because this is the framework I want to go through. I I uh I you know cross-reference it against venture clienting and other models, and I decided that this is the format that I want to choose. Now, when I do this, this is the strategy or this is the focus I want to do when I invest. A lot of them, like I described, kind of murphed from an MA, trying to kind of like spray and pray and invest in companies that they see as very interesting without a strategic approach. And I think this is the core thing. When you want to have a CBC, you need to lead by strategy. You need to see that the investments are aligned with what the strategy of the organization is and they are coordinated in 100%. Otherwise, it never works, and that's the point. So CVCs need to be more linked and more strategy driven than they are today.

Philipp: 26:08

But would you would you not say that um you know a CVC also has a role to kind of like be the one looking into the future, you know, obviously knowing what the 20, you know, the five-year plan might be of a company with a strategic vision, but then also saying, okay, there is something evolving in a specific vertical um which could help us to maybe leapfrog or be faster, uh, which at the first hand may not may not look like it's strategic at the moment, but suddenly it becomes much more strategic.

Yaron: 26:40

So, you know, again, why do you need to invest? Show me a deal with a company and I will show you a way to collaborate with them without investing it. Investment is not the only end. So if you do choose to invest into a company, it's not because this would lead into the future. You can do that by not investing. But uh, when you want to invest, you need to figure out why you want to invest. Maybe the company needs now money because they have a great product in a different sector and you want to bring them to your sector. So you need money in order to invest and diversify. Maybe they need uh uh, you know, they have a very great idea, but they need more time to market it. They need the support of you and your team. That's great. But that's strategy-driven investments, not that the other way around, right? Of investing and then figuring out did I invest in something that is very interesting. And I'll give you an example. I worked in Continental, they invested in a company that does um you know, uh flying taxis. Why? I don't think there was a strategy behind that, and and uh this invested uh uh eventually failed and does pulled out. Why? Because it wasn't a strategic decision. I want to go into this sector, so I'm looking for companies now that I want to invest in and progress. It was high shiny, so they decided to invest. And this is exactly what you need to be aware of. Uh when you do investments, it needs to come from a holistic point of view on an understanding of this is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, and this is the best way and approach you to achieve it.

Steve: 28:27

Yaren, I want to close here with a getting your vision of the future. But before we do, I think you hit on something that is that is interesting to me when you think about mobility. Everything from electric vehicles to self-driving cars to shiny things that fly themselves, et cetera. I mean, we're looking at 15 to 20 years already of investment in that thing. And certainly there's been progress. Um, but we're such a long way from that tipping point, right? I'm curious, do are we ever gonna see that future of mobility? Are we gonna see it after all of that investment?

Yaron: 29:02

100%, but not in the and and I was I I remember that I had this conversation 10 years back. Everyone said, you know, Johan, the technology is out there, it's gonna be here in five years. And I said, No, guys, the regulation will kill this. Only regulation, when you start now experimentation, and let's say that an accident has happened, and one of my previous roles was responsible for regulation, so I and homologation, so I knew about this. One accident and everything stops and everything goes back to the drawing board. So I think there was an attempt to leapfrog and not let things run by its natural course. And companies now came back and kind of like reassessed and figured out okay, maybe we don't need to jump ahead and let things progress by its natural phase. And you do see things now progress. You do see autonomous, but in niche areas. Which is quite okay. Now they're going to test it, they're going to see it works, and then it's going to start rippling it towards larger and larger applications. So it will definitely be out there, but it will take some time. And companies are now treating this in the right way of letting things draw in the natural way they should rather than skip ahead.

Steve: 30:22

Yeah, I agree. It did seem, it does seem like many companies drank the proverbial uh Kool-Aid on this, if they will. And you know, we saw we saw these investments all around early on. And so um, yeah, absolutely. So thank you. So let's look ahead. 2035, will Europe have produced these global leaders uh through corporate venture and innovation, or are we still going to be debating the the basics, the the why you should have have an innovation strategy as part of your company?

Yaron: 30:52

Well, 100%, I I wouldn't say 100% because that's pretentious, but 99.9% that you will. And why? Because you're seeing this progress. You're seeing more and more companies start to really mirph and kind of build their own structure around the topics that they want to focus on. They say, okay, I understood that innovation is not one thing that I do internally, or it's not one model, but it's kind of a blend. And now I'm trying to blend it. I'm mixing and trying, but everything is now driven from a strategical point of view and the thinking behind that rather than playing in the sandbox. You see the new ISO coming in. So in five years' time, if you want to be certified for this ISO, you need to show a management process run by professional. If you're not going to be able to show that, your company will not get this ISO. And companies will start now requesting that, customers and large corporations, because the competitors already have this. So everyone is pushing everyone in that domain, right? Because the first one who will do it right, they will push the others to kind of close the gap. And therefore, I see this coming into fruition, I believe, in five to ten years. Uh, and that's kind of the natural flow of things.

Steve: 32:09

Yaron, thank you so much for joining us on Inside CVC. Uh, you mentioned your newsletter earlier. Uh, where can people find you? Where can people subscribe? Where can people connect with you?

Yaron: 32:20

Easy. LinkedIn. There's only one year on Flynn. So uh easy to find me, easy to engage. When you click on my uh my profile, the first thing that you come across is the newsletter. Join, read it, I think uh respond. I think uh some of them created a very nice buzz and uh kind of like uh you know uh conversational debates around them. And I I I enjoy that because that's what basically moves us uh uh forward as humans, right? We need to debate, we need to uh have these positive arguments in order to proceed. Absolutely.

Philipp: 32:57

Yaron, you couldn't couldn't couldn't agree more with you. Thank you so much for coming on the show. And um, yeah, looking uh looking forward uh to to many more discussions with you and hopefully also together uh putting a lot of uh things to action. Thanks for your time. Thank you for having me.

Steve: 33:13

That was Yeron Flint and a grounded, candid look at how companies can move from chaos to clarity in their innovation efforts. For more of Yaron's work, connect with him on LinkedIn, or you can also subscribe to his newsletter. And if you're interested in more episodes of Inside CVC, you can find us on your favorite podcast platform or online at uPath.com forward slash podcast. That's this week's episode. As always, thanks for listening. We'll see you next time.