SPEAKER_00 0:16

Ram managers, good morning. How are you? How are you going? It's a beautiful morning in London, Friday. I actually am I'm in London today, not in Australia. A little bit hungover. Trust all is well. Um important couple of sessions. Uh we're about to head into objectives, but we've got positioning and codes to cover. Uh big bunch of questions. I want to do it in 40 minutes if I can. So let's get rolling. And we're going to start with Elizabeth. Uh, question on targeting, which has come up whilst completing the Moon brand plan. When choosing which segments to target, does it make more sense to double down on segments where you already have strong percentage share or focus on segments where your share is lower? What have you seen work best? Or it's an impossible question, Elizabeth. Um, it's a good question, but it's impossible in the sense that um the levels are one question. The the nature of the moon market is such that it's still a relatively small penetration, right? And there's still many more customers to come. And it depends. What do you mean by you know, you've got a strong percentage share? That could be 20%, it could be 40%. Generally speaking, just avoid the zeros. When you've got 0% share, it tells you something, right? If it's four or five or twelve, that those are interesting numbers. But I you have to make the call based on resources, based on ambition. I can't help you. You've got to make that call. Rory, regarding positioning, it's clear prioritization heuristics are crucial, but I wonder if there's a more challenging uh dependent variable on the sector. In the NGO sector, is there a risk of benchmarking only against our peers and falling into a values-led echo chamber? How do we build a positioning map that is truly market-oriented towards where our target audience's attention and energy is actually spent rather than where other NGOs are playing? Yeah, it's a good point. The secret is qualitative research, Rory. Qual is inductive. And if you proceed your quant with qual, you're going to avoid this excellent uh challenge of yours. Um, that's the key. You're not plugging in your assumptions, you're starting with the qualitative that came from the consumer. That's why qual should always come before quant. And Rory says, when segmenting and targeting a focused audience, the short of it, I think you've mentioned previously that direction or usually jumps off the page during diagnosis and research. Yeah, to some degree. Is this always the case? Have you sometimes had to take a leap of faith and play in the gray first in year one before adjusting over time through evaluation and measurement? Or is the if the answer isn't clear, should the priority be conducting further diagnosis? No, no, no, no. So it I I don't want to give the impression you instantly, you know, this is this world of insight where you suddenly it leaps off the page what you need to do. I I don't think that happens. I think my experience at least is it's always to some degree a leap of faith. That jump from diagnosis to strategy is I can remember a couple of times on my career it was super obvious, like a like landing a plane in the night. But for the most part, you're never sure. You're really never sure. Yeah. So don't let that send you back to do more research. There's always some degree of leap, no matter how good the diagnosis is. Don't look for certainty, it won't be there. Miranda, if your target audience associates your brand with more niche and emotionally rich attributes, but the broader mass market associates it with simpler category cues, which should take priority in positioning? Is the priority of positioning to deeper emotional meaning with the target segment, or to simplify associations for broader mental availability? No, no, no. The answer to your question, Miranda, is targeting. I don't care, you know, uh it could be either, but what you're saying here is the target audience. That's who I care about. Yeah? And everything, you know, how do you calculate your funnel numbers? You put your target audience at the top. How do you answer your question about positioning? You think about your target audience. Targeting has to come first, as we said in strategy, because it sets the answer for everything else. So the answer to the question is my target audience. You've got to be focused. Alex, I missed the previous QA. Uh shame on you. Um, speaking of the long versus the short, is brand building versus product two different sides of the coin? Yeah, yeah, of course. Can't a product-focused narrative be done in a way that evokes emotions and thus builds the brand? Absolutely. Brands like Apple and Nike being good, albeit cliche the examples of brands that have seemed to do product-focused brand building. No, no, you're absolutely right, Alex. And sometimes it's quite a complex point. Obviously, brand and product are the same thing to some degree. It's a question of what you which side of the coin you're putting more emphasis on. And to your point, sometimes there are companies that position their brand in a more simplistic, product-oriented way. And, you know, how do you build your your uh you know, Nike's case? How do you build your positioning? Uh, your brand positioning is you you push the product to the fore. That's fine. That's fine too. I think it's more about are we talking about what the product does or are we speaking about what the brand needs to stand for? Which in some cases might be the product. So we're splitting hairs, but but they they still are there's a different emphasis. Phoebe, I love the name Phoebe. I think it's one of the great unused names. I call my daughter Roxy, Roxanne, but I was Phoebe would have would have been equally good. And Appleby is also sorry, Phoebe, you're getting the full branding analysis. Appleby is a town near where I'm from. It's a fine horsefare town. My great-grandmother was a gypsy who used to sell horses in Appleby. So you just generally, whatever your question is now, Phoebe, you've already won him. Phoebe Appleby is as close to a perfect name as I know. Anyway, when a company functions simultaneously as a product brand and a retail platform with competitor brands, how does this affect consumer salience and long-term brand equity? Learning about the value of simplified brand focus. I'm curious whether dual strategy creates clarity or dilution. It's a good question, too, Phoebe. Um I don't know how to answer it, but it's a very good question. When you're a product brand and a retail platform, to some degree, yeah, the simplicity has to become even stronger. I mean, I'm trying to think of an example I've worked on. When I worked on Sephora, um, it almost becomes essential that our brand is super, super clear because we are literally surrounded by our competitor brands. You know, there's Chanel over there, you know what I mean? There's L'Oreal around the corner. We supply them, but also to some degree we compete with them as well. So I think it just it just makes the the the prioritization of brand focus and positioning just as big as ever. David, how is distinctiveness and relative differentiation different? Core blame. Coke is known for its brand name, brand image, distinct assets, which are distinct, but also relatively differentiated from Pepsi. Yeah, yeah. So hang on, so hang on. You those things you've just described, the the brand name, the brand image, they're routes by which distinctiveness occurs, right? So you're not distinct, uh distinctly known for brand name or brand image. Your bottle shape and your logo bring the brand to mind when you walk in the store. And the way to answer the question is uh it it's it's brutal simplicity, yeah, when it comes to distinctiveness. Do you do you stand out? Yeah, and that's it. What you stand for is not the question here. Do you stand out? Do you come to mind? That's the distinct do you literally emerge from the background? Yeah. Do I think of you? That's it. That's all we're talking about with distinctiveness. You can you can't have positive or negative distinctiveness. You're there. When we get to relative differentiation, it becomes okay, you stand out, but you may stand out for a bad way. Um, what do you stand for? What comes to mind? Do you see what I mean? So I take the point that these things drive it, but the the best way to think about it, I always use the word brutal when it comes to distinctiveness because it is brutal salience. Yeah, it's it's a it's a switch that is either on or off. Claire, within my industry, medtech B2P, we have a long sales cycle, three to five years. I know there are different messages, but how would this impact the choice of targeting given their similar time scales to see the impact? Yeah, I I well, I've worked in your industry a lot, and um uh what it means is essentially when you do your segmentation, you're still doing the maths. But one of the great variables of medical segmentation is will be in tender this year, yeah? Or is you know, formulary is is gonna change, you know. So there's often a variable similar to moon that says they're coming into market this year. But other than that, you know, you'll you know there's a three to five year sales cycle. That's the difference. For cars, for software, for laptops, for mini MBAs, there's a similar cycle when you think about it, Claire. We have a three-year cycle. We just it's not as clearly explicit as it is in your market. One of the great variables of medical segmentation in my life has been in tender this year. You know, there are you know 100,000 accounts, and 12,000 of them will review their tender for, you know, whatever, nutrition this year. What a what an that's a very important variable for obvious reasons. Florence, given the rise of creator marketing and social amplification, our audience is now increasingly being targeted through platform algorithms and creator affinity rather than traditional segmentation models. I think when it comes to communications sometimes, but the so yes, a little bit. But my point, Florence, is targeting is not about comms alone. Yeah? That's 10% of targeting, 25% facts. We are choosing a target segment to build funnels, to set objectives, to design products, to do pricing, you know what I mean, to calculate penetration, to do market research sampling. It's the whole thing. Now, one aspect of that is I want to go after these guys. Now, maybe I'll use algorithms to reach them. That's great. But there's a much bigger, that's a tactical target, yeah. There's a much bigger strategic challenge with targeting that precedes that. Don't forget that one, right? Yasmin, there are large advantages that come with working at scale with global brands. Oh, yeah. What techniques can be applied to emerging brands that don't have the mass reaches yet? Oh, look, there's only a couple, it's mostly bad news, as you know, Yasmin. I mean, it's mostly positive to be in a big brand. The game isn't fair. We've talked about that. Um in a smaller brand, there's a couple of advantages. Um, you you have more creativity, you can take more risks, you can position against a larger brand and and benefit from it and not look like a bully. Um and you can go after subcategories or or tighter niche segments because you're effectively a smaller base. That's the big advantage. Yeah, you can take more risks, you can go, oh, we won't go after everyone. You know what I mean? We'll go after just these guys over here. Because we only need a certain proportion of money to hit our number, so we can specialize at least at the beginning. That's about it though, because for the most part, I have to be honest with you, being small is a distinct disadvantage. You know, David versus Goliath, David doesn't win, you know, not in marketing. Lauren, in FMCG, how do you keep a single brand coherent when you're targeting both consumers and B2B customers, such as wholesalers? I understand the idea of one core brand DNA, but if the short position needs to differ by audience and product, do you then create separate positioning for B2C and B2B? Where do you draw the line? Uh look, I don't, it's up to you. I think it's more common that you'll find the brand architecture, which we haven't got to yet, means the group FMCG brand, PG, to use the cliched example, that's got the positioning to Tesco, to Carrefour, to Walmart, right? It's PG. When we get down to the actual individual brand level, if you're part of a house of brands, then we're in we're in a looser place. So one of the roles we'll see brand architecture play is that B2B versus B2C distinction. Sophie Heck, with the is part of a positioning statement for Moon, I feel like I'm falling into writing what I feel like will be tactics down the line with an aim to differentiate. How can I reframe my thinking? I think what you've done there, Sophie, which is common, the is is what you want them to think. Yeah. Um so you've probably done that earlier, right? So to Sophie hack, the mini MBA versus doing a full-time MBA is quicker, more efficient, and more applied. Yeah. Don't go any deeper than that, is the point. Yeah. So benefits, sure. An easy hack, forgive me, Sophie, is to ask yourself, what do I want her to think when she thinks of my brand? It's the intention, right? Write that down. That's what the is is meant to be. Everything's coming to this is what I want you to think. Just go that way. Keep it simple. Ted Fraser, a question related to brand survey. Could we also include a pricing question here, like Van Vestendorp, to make sense in all one survey? Yes, Ted, you got it. We we're we're, you know, in my dream world, especially like you, if you've done mini MBA marketing, you know all the stuff you need. You do backwards market research and you build a single elegant survey that then feeds lots of things. Obviously, your brand tracking, your brand diagnosis, your pricing, your segmentation, uh jobs to be done, product stuff, net promoter score. It can all be in there, right? My advice is get through the course and understand what you need, work on Moon, and then when you build your own survey, it's a case of right, I know what I want, I'll build that into the survey. I I would love you to do all of that in one go. And the extra advantage is you can slice and dice the questions and the correlations in a way you couldn't do if you were asking them in separate surveys. You can find out, for example, if you do a Van Vestendorp, what it looks like for different segments, because you've also got your segment questions there too. So I would encourage you to keep going down that path. Um, and Van Vestendorp is a pricing tool we use that we train in mini MVA and marketing. So you're not missing something, brand guys. It's a it's a pricing tool. Uh Nina, I can see why too many articulations for positioning a B2C product can dilute impact. As an agency, we often define a brand for complex organizations through those exact lenses: essence, proposition, promise to the market, position in the market, their beliefs, and how they will achieve their ambitions and their mission. B2Bs have customer segments, but also their brand has to appeal to other stakeholders, funders, donors. For a B2B or not profit brand that is held up to scrutiny, does their brand truly need to ensure each element plays a distinct role? Are those stakeholders just segments who need their own positioning in terms of long-term brand building? Uh, can you see my confusion? I suppose I find it hard to say how hard to see how only one articulation outside of B2C can work. Yeah, but it doesn't stop it. It's hard, Nina. It's easier to come up with six concepts for a brand. Um, but it doesn't mean that it's right. Yeah, you've got to challenge. And look, if your client, I I've worked on brands where they've wanted you know four different things. Yeah, I've you know, I fundamentally disagree with SWAT. When a client asks me to do it, I go, yeah, of course. So as an agency, if they want that, Nina, I think you deliver it, right? You give them some advice, but you deliver it. Um, I wouldn't be proposing it, I would keep it tighter because I think it does work better. But again, it's your call. This is my take on positioning, it's worked for me. I think I'm right, or I wouldn't have put it in the class. There's room, if you disagree on this point, you've got to go your own way. I can only tell you the focus of less and starting with less is the right way to do it, in my experience. Uh, you know, and every time you add something, and you might have to add stuff, like if you have stakeholders and and the brand wants a separate positioning angle, by all means. Every time you add more pastry to the cake, the chances of the cake rising in the oven get less. That's all I'm saying to you. Of it actually working, illity of it working is less. When I look at all these case studies over my years, there's a clear correlation of less being more powerful. Nina, as a follow-on, are you saying that essence, beliefs, vision, mission, and purpose are all brand positions to take? Yeah, what I'm saying is they're all different ways of saying exactly the same thing. What do we want to stand for in the customer's head? I don't care if you call it brand purpose, I don't care if you call it brand mission. By the time you've got beliefs, vision, mission, purpose, you've said different things or the same thing too many times, and none of it will land. That's what I'm saying. Um, that's my take on it. Um, and and you know, that's it's for you to decide, right? Ted Fraser, a classic architecture question. Okay, we're not there yet. We're we're two weeks away, but go on then. A fireplace brand offers a range of products, its brand image and historic sales volume is weighted squarely in the mid-market tier. The company wants to target high-end customers to sell more of its luxury products. They can either extend existing positioning and tactics to a more premium customer, create a premium sub brand, or develop a new luxury top-end brand. Which is better? A, extend the existing positioning. Um we'll talk about that a lot more, Ted. You don't want too many brands. Creating new brands is stupid, it will cost you money. The I like to say to clients, unless you're making you know, uh machine guns and children's toys, and there's an absolute crushing contradiction and danger between the two categories, the same brand is the way to go. Everyone's gone that way. Yeah, there has to be a very good reason. And having a slightly more expensive fireplace is not a good reason to create a new brand, even a sub-brand. But let's get to it when we get to architecture, and I think you'll see it more clearly. Uh, Sarah, thank you for releasing the bonus module on segmentation. You're welcome. I got into trouble over that this week. Um, in terms of segmentation and targeting, where, if at all, do you see the role of personas? All right, so we're now in trouble now because I didn't that's in the targeting module of the mini MBA. Personas or customer portraits are what you do once you've done targeting. And what you've had if you do, you go, I'm targeting these guys. I'm gonna use all the data now to create a persona. Now, don't make it a persona not built from data. You often see these aspirational bullshit personas where they're really excited about the new product and all that. That's not what we're talking about. A persona should be a difficult, hard thing built from data, an amalgam of the segment. So we now know who this, who this person or organization is. That's where it sits. After targeting, it's how you fill it out. Charlotte, in your article on Burberry's luxury reposition under Marco Gabetti, ah, Marco, you noted that you didn't think the repositioning would work and you checked back in 2022. After Gabetti left in 2021, they brought in a new C-suite team, including Daniel Lee. Under his direction, they brought the Equestrian Knight logo back, with Lee stating that he was excited to find the narrative of Burberry and went back to the idea of functionality. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's almost like you read my article. Uh, what are your thoughts on Lee's direction? I love it. I think I think they have a tough gig. Luxury's a tough gig at the moment. I think they got the brand. I love Marco. He's a genius, he got it wrong. I think I called it right. I think there is function. I think there is uh an accessibility to Burberry, even though it's high-end, that's part of its DNA. And I think my column stands up very well now. Very, very well. And I think Daniel Lee's very good. Uh, Rory, thank you for a fascinating course. I'm really enjoying geeking out. Uh I work at a really cool campaigning NGO called Biteback. A service to our audience is essentially campaigning to protect children's food health. Cool. Up against the junk food giants, outspending as a thousand one. This might be a cheeky question, uh, but as a very experienced marketer who's seen the mega brands, what piece of advice would you give me as a brand manager to combat them? Uh, take a versus positioning. Um, follow Ryanair. Yeah? You need to be more aggressive, Rory, and and and bounce off them in order to generate your own salience and positioning. Maria, hi Mark. What is your take on outsourcing surveys to B2B panels versus DIY surveys? Good question. Um, if if there's a panel that has your data uh and your customer, use them. Um, it's always better to build your own survey and recruit your own sample. It's just almost impossible in B2B. And the same goes for synthetic data now, right? And synthetic market research. It would be great to talk to 100 CEOs that you recruit yourself. It just isn't possible. So if the panel has your data, trust the panel and use them. They're worth it. The part of my marketing brand plan where I need to connect requested budget with revenue it delivers makes me nervous. No shit. Uh, because finance wants to know what the return on investment will be when I request or increase budget. How do I make sure I don't overpromise? Okay, okay, hang on. We're gonna get there. We'll we'll I'll show you how to build your objectives next week, and then I'll show you how to put numbers on them, and then I'll show you how we do a bottom-up bit of budgeting. It's coming, Maria. It's coming. It's part of the course, we're gonna cover it. Rory, I really agree with your emphasis on distinctiveness. Good. Regarding Cantar's 2019 research into the strength of code types, the strength seems to correlate with codes that can be recognized at the briefest of glances. Yeah. And those that can be owned entirely and made especially distinctive. Yeah. The lower scoring codes like celebrities in colours may be harder to be distinctive because they're always out in the world and filled with their own external associations. Negotiations. Would that be a fair read? Absolutely. I think it's, wait for this one, endogenous to the nature of codes and distinctive brand assets. Yeah, I think that's that's that's what you're picking up. Uh time check. Uh 22 minutes in, we're going well. Sarah, what are your thoughts on changing or expanding codes for specific short-term seasonal campaigns? I once worked at a scale up where every campaign kept the logo, but shapes and iconography were tweaked at the behest of the CMO to keep things fresh. Um semi-related, what are your thoughts on brands that change their logos in the short term? Yeah, we'll talk about it in the in the in the codes module that you haven't done yet. Um the rule that I have, sir, is and it's not a bullshit rule. After 40 years of the same codes, you can start doing that stuff. Before 40 years, you should be enforcing, and I mean 40 years. It takes time to bed these things in, decades, and then you can play with them, tweak them. Um, but it's too early. Even Spotify for me, it's too early. Yeah, they've got a ways to go yet, even though it's a very common uh uh code they're using. I like, you know, I like it to be much more bedded in. When you see the module, you you'll see what I'm talking about. And there's a couple of readings on it too. Alex, in the previous QA, a question was raised regarding the challenge of getting a company to move its spends from current performance orientation to more brand-led, while a brand-led approach has a priming effect and does immediately contribute even towards short-term sales. Yep. However, with tighter sales evaluation windows, would you agree that a shift in budgets away from activation will initially be greeted by the risk of a short-term decline? No. When evaluated within tighter sales windows, no, I wouldn't, Alex. So here's the deal: the long of it doesn't mean it takes a long time to work. It means it takes slightly longer to work, but not weeks and months, and then it lasts a long time. That's what Pete and Les meant. Yeah? It's longer, it's more enduring. So it it it you know, performance does work immediately if it's done well. But the long of it ramps up and then stays. It isn't some enormous drawn-out process. And I think that's that's a myth you need to kill. Yasmin, thank you for this amazing and logical. Oh gosh, calling me logical. That doesn't happen very often. Enjoying it very much. You did mention at some stage that nonprofits would have a slightly different approach. Could you elaborate a little on this? Yeah, look, we'll get to it. Let's do it right at the end when we've got the whole approach lined up. And if you prompt me, Yaz, in the final QA, I'll take a big run-up on it. It's not massively different, but but prompt me. And when we've got the whole thing lined up, let's let's spin it. Uh, poo yeah. The media in focus document that was shared, uh, as Mandridge reading for the target course in module four. Is there an updated version? No, no, that's it. Um that's that's their work. I I I wouldn't worry, I mean, I know some of it's media data. I think the principles are the same. Obviously, we could update the data, and they haven't done anything that big since. So, no, I did check on that one. Um, is there anything uh if I have anything that is along the same lines that's of 25, 26 vintage puja, I'll I'll I'll publish it. But that's that's them that's their thing there. Charlotte, what differences do you observe when working with startups and scale-ups or more established companies? They don't have the same budgets, they aren't wanting to dedicate the same amount to brand management and brand maturity differs. Would you approach each stage differently? As an independent brand manager, what would your recommendations be depending on company's scale? And how would you approach a startup fender who has more immediate needs? Look, I'm not dismissing your question, Charlotte. I really don't think it's that different. Um, or it shouldn't be that different. The principles all apply. The only thing I would say to you is in those first four to five years of you know Series B C funding, the focus should be on staying in business and uh and and trying to make a profit. Yeah. It it you have to lit give the brand a little bit of room to find its place. It's like having kids, you know. Initially, you might think your kid's gonna be a doctor or a surgeon, but after four or five years, it becomes apparent, you know, she's gonna be a car thief or whatever, you know? And then they find their way, and then you can kind of parent a bit better. In the same way, I think as a brand manager of a newer brand, you've just got to give it a bit more flex. But everything else, I've got to be honest with you, it's exactly the same. Letting it find its place a little bit more, but that's about it. David Davinia, uh uh in an area where brands increasingly discover their audience through algorithmic targeting rather than cultural insight, are we producing more technically precise but culturally hollow positioning? Can you point to a modern brand that's genuinely achieved that iconic cultural resonance and one that's fooling itself into thinking it has? Again, I want to draw a big line here. You know, yes, for communications targeting, which is part of it, the algorithmic thing is true. Uh algorithmically working out your target for the overall strategic approach in the broader process of brand management, I think is not necessarily, you know, it it can contribute, but it should it it should be a broader, more uh humanistic approach. Um, which brands have really got it? Um, and and have really become culturally resonant. I mean, the brand I I study the most, I think, is probably Levi's, which is weird. You're probably not old enough to remember this, but uh it was at the heart, the beating heart of culture in the 80s and early 90s, and then it completely lost it and has never been able to climb back. And I am fascinated with that story to the point where I'm trying to tell it at the moment in a case study. That's the one I would study because they had it incredibly, and then they had none of it, and that process of losing gaining it, losing it, and not getting it back is probably where I'd I would devote my attention. Davinia, again, today a single viral moment can reposition a brand overnight. You're steady, steady, for better or for worse. Has this dynamic fundamentally broken the traditional repositioning playbook? And what do you to you does disciplined repositioning look like? I don't believe in repositioning, is the single thing I would say to you, Davini. I I I I don't do it. I mean, repositioning works, and we said this uh in the class, when you've lost your position, but not you're trying to move it around. It it's a myth, right? I think you will find that you should, you know, it's a great question. You need to you need to be more patient. Yeah, a cultural moment can impact things, but often things will settle back down again. Yeah? Don't be in a rush to reposition a brand just because something has happened. Yes, we had Bud Light, yeah, but it's a real exception. Otherwise, you sit tight and you let it flow, patience. You'll find things do pass. We are, you know, be careful. And one more from Davina. In brand turnaround situations, leadership pushes brands towards short-term retention and activation, even though we know long-term growth requires recruitment and brand building. How should marketers think about balancing the 60-40 long versus short during periods of business pressure without starving the future pipeline? It you've still got to do it, right? It's in unless you believe the world is gonna end at Christmas, it's insane to move all this money into short-term activation and lose the future pipeline. You think about where it just doesn't stand up, and you have to fight for that because it's illogical. It's illogical, yeah. Um, Natalie, what would be your advice to someone working for a business that has a brand and campaign that is emotive and links to the brand DNA? However, due to commercial pressures and business not being able to wait for long-term payoff, they started to introduce product positioning messages into the brand assets. Have you seen any marketers who are in the C-suite win here, either in messaging or altering points of view? Yeah, Natalie, it's not the end of the world. We talked about it a little bit earlier. It doesn't have to be pure. You know, when I worked for Louis Vuitton, Antoine Arnault, who was running comms at the time, was really very good. And he had this thing where you would have these incredible emotional campaigns. You know, Catherine Deneuve at Gardinor Station looking beautiful in the steam and the train and the uh, you know. And yet she also had a speedy, like standard, beautiful mainstream products sitting right there. It's not the end of the world to have products right in the middle of emotional brand building work. I think in some ways it might be better. So don't fight it. Make sure you have the beauty of your emotional DNA-driven stuff. The product doesn't ruin it. Yeah. They can live together. And in many cases, it's better if they do. Yeah. Okay, one more to go. And it's Ren. Hey, Ren. I'm gonna I'm gonna move my head out of this. Uh, positioning for your target segments. What about categories where they are where they are influential buyers? For example, in healthcare, a spouse can motivate their partner to be proactive and visit their doctor. Do you treat them as just another segment? And if so, how do you apply value market share to them? Also, from an activation point, they're not the ones converting, just influencing. So, are they really part of the broad mass reach? No, no, no. So, in those situations, let me give you an example. When I worked in hemophilia, um, kids tragically who have hemophilia, boys who have hemophilia, at least until they're 16 or 17, their parents are managing their condition, and so is the nurse that kind of grows up with them. You still are, you still are segmenting on that target consumer. But when you do the portrait or persona, you tell the story of the parent and the and the hemophilia nurse and how they all work together. So effectively, you're still targeting that unit of customer, but in the portrait, it isn't how I decide, it's also how everyone else decides and how they influence. Do it at that level, otherwise, your segmentation turns into spaghetti. Okay, good questions. I'm racing a bit, but I I wanted to get them through. Um, so we're we're making good progress, right? With positioning into codes. Now we're gonna get into objectives and architecture. So it really is now, it should start clunking together. I want you to get into moon. Um, if you haven't done so already, just have a go at it. So when we get to the simulation, you can play your shit out and see how it works. Just mess around with the brand plan. Fill it out, have a go, read a bit of the buy a little bit of research, play the game. Um, objectives for me is a fun module, as you'll see, and architecture is very important. I also want you to look up. So here's an interesting fun fact to finish the session. Have a look at the uh current tussle to become prime minister in England, in the UK, because you will discover that your trusty marketing professor is a dead ringer for a combination of Keir Starmer, the current prime minister, and Andy Burnham, the guy that's going to replace him. If you put those guys together and mingle them together, it would look like this, which isn't a very good thing. So like two movie stars, you know, it's like two fat politicians, would look like this. Uh eight people on the street have have told me that this week. I look like the prime minister. That's how old I am. Anyway. Uh, it's good to see you. Um, get stuck into it next week. Uh, if you're in Europe, enjoy the spring. If you're in the southern hemisphere, tough. A time will come again. And I'll see you next week in class. Like, you know, you can't get it.