The Joel Test, for Marketers

In this episode of Marketing Made Difficult, we discuss The Joel Test, engineer Joel Spolsky’s checklist for running a software development team. And why it’s relevant for marketers.

Justin: Just to quickly introduce this idea of the Joel test, it’s literally called the Joel Test, the 12 Steps to Better Code. Joel goes through and he has a list of questions that you answer yes or no. They’re very easy to answer. They tell you whether you’re about to join a software team that knows what it’s doing.

We also talk about:

Whether marketers should use source control

Justin: That’s a really interesting one too, because things like traceability and communication and being able to reproduce things that you’ve seen are all pretty critical to any business process, but really only in engineering have people had a focus on that.

Why specifications are important

Justin: If you don’t have an idea of what you’re trying to accomplish or you don’t know what you want on the spec, and you don’t have time to figure it out, then you definitely don’t have time to do the actual thing that we’re going to do.

Finding your target audience

Vincent: I’ve seen a lot of companies, where if you ask them who their target audience is, they’re like, “Well, really we’re one of those unique companies that can apply to anyone or everyone… we really want to connect with everyone.” It just doesn’t work that way. When you speak to everyone, you speak to no one.

We love getting feedback and comments. Leave them here, or find us on Twitter @vincentbarr and @jwyattd.

Full Transcript

Vincent:

Hey, listeners. Welcome to Marketing Made Difficult with Vincent Barr and Justin Dunham. Today we’re here to talk about the Joel test. The Joel test was introduced by Joel Spolsky, the founder of Fog Creek Software, which produced Trello, the product management app, and we’re going to talk about the Joel test, what it is and how it relates to marketing.

Justin:

Yeah. Just to quickly introduce this idea of the Joel test, it’s literally called the Joel Test, the 12 Steps to Better Code. Joel goes through and he has a list of questions that you answer yes or no. They’re very easy to answer. They tell you whether you’re about to join a software team that knows what it’s doing.

An interesting sort of implication of that is it’s a way of figuring out how good a software team is, but, by proxy, it’s also a way of figuring out how good their output is. If they followed these practices, if they say yes to these questions, you can probably assume that their output is reasonably good.

The other thing that’s really important about it is it’s a quick way of doing it, and especially in the world of marketing, where there’s a creative aspect to it and people are constantly trying to figure out what they want to measure and what numbers are actually going to reflect the things that they want to achieve, it’s really useful to have a quick test that would tell you whether a marketing team is functioning well and whether the output is worth paying attention to.

Vincent:

Yeah, it’s basically a sniff test for an organization or a business unit within an organization.

Justin:

Yeah, exactly.

Let’s just run through a few of these real quick that I think are pretty interesting. The first one is he asks if an engineering team is using source control. Source control …

Do you want to explain what that is, Vincent, or …?

Vincent:

Sure. With source control, I think he’s referring to version control, where you basically have a source code that everyone’s working from and then everyone works separately on their own branches. Then they’re merging this back into the code base.

For example, you push a feature that breaks or you find a vulnerability in a feature that you’ve deployed, you can roll it back in time and see exactly what edits were made and when those edits were made and roll it back to the last time that it performed best. It also allows people to do peer-to-peer code review much easier, and it tends to result in a higher quality product.

Justin:

Yeah. It tells you who is writing what, and it’s a way of communicating, and it’s a way of tracing; exactly. That’s a really interesting one too, because things like traceability and communication and being able to reproduce things that you’ve seen are all pretty critical to any business process, but really only in engineering have people had a focus on that.

Vincent:

Yeah, absolutely. I think one other place where you’re seeing more of that is with editorial teams. For example, if you think about Google Docs, that more or less has source control built in now as well, so you can pull down the revision history. People have the different colored cursors. You can more or less highlight or write in your edits and suggestions in a way that other people can peer review them and approve them rather than just having a single pair of eyes that might be prone to error.

With marketing, we really don’t have that luxury, which is unfortunate. For example, perhaps you make a bunch of changes in a certain advertising platform or you run a series of tests or you do a large website update, that you’re not able to just roll back to the last time it was performing well.

Justin:

Totally. Right. The other thing is you may not be able to, as you’ve said, not only can you not roll it back, but you also may suffer a lack of reproducibility. If I have an AdWords campaign or an AdWords account, and I might be spending $50,000 a month or $500,000 a month or $5,000,000 a month, and there’s really no way right now for you to, as you said, go in, track the changes to that, see what had what effect. There’s also no way to guarantee reproducibility.

The thing about source code that’s really nice is you deploy it once. It runs the same everywhere, at least in theory. We know that that doesn’t actually work in marketing, so that’s an interesting part of it as well.

Vincent:

Agreed. I think one luxury that marketers have is they don’t have to worry about development environments so much, as well, which can be a task in and of itself to set up. The code may work fine on one person’s computer and not so much on another, whereas I think marketing software sits pretty comfortably on top of whatever platform you’re working from.

Justin:

Right. Right.

Vincent:

It really just comes back to is there documentation to get me up to speed on what I’m doing, how we use this tool, why we use it, how frequently we use it, which I think is a separate topic and may be similar to Joel’s Test Question Number 7, which is, “Do you have a spec,” which is basically a definition or a set of requirements for what you’re intending to build.

Justin:

Yeah. Let’s talk about that one; right? We said source control may or may not apply, but is a spec important for marketing? If you’re out there creating something, what is a spec, first of all?

Vincent:

In my opinion, and I think this varies widely from organization to organization and person to person, I think a good spec is the bare minimum. It’s translating what you have in mind and what you intend to do and putting that on paper in a way that someone else who is not familiar with the topic but has expertise in the area can understand.

For marketing, I think a good spec would be, “Who is our target audience?” “Is there a budget limit?” “If so, what?” “Is there a deadline? What resources do you need?” “Do you need engineering resources?” “Do you need design?” Then probably the value proposition or the message you would need.

Justin:

I think those are all parts of a spec. I think there’s another really important aspect to a spec as well, which it’s not just that somebody else should understand it, but it’s that as a process component, sitting down and actually writing down all the little pieces that you need before you hand it off to somebody is really important.

As somebody who, as part of my job, runs our website, I can’t tell you how many times people come to me and say, “Hey, I want a page that’s kind of like this, and it should have these things on it.” About 50% of the time I dutifully execute on whatever guidance they’ve given me, but there’s, we’re updating later in dribs and drabs. People aren’t really thinking about what they need out of the page until they see it.

On top of that, if you don’t specify in advance what kind of performance you’re looking for, I can’t tell you whether it’s reasonable to expect that. I think that should be part of a spec as well. If you’re sitting down and running an ad campaign, you should probably, in the ideal world, know, “Hey, we need this to perform at $50 CPA in order to hit our acquisition goals with the budget we have.” Those could all be parts of a spec.

Vincent:

Yeah, I think that’s a great point, that you should have some end goal or some target metric in mind. Otherwise, you could just be shooting in the wind, so what’s the performance metric, either it be a quantitative or qualitative, that we’re going to use to determine was this a good decision.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

I think one question that came to mind when you were talking, is, how thorough should a spec be. On the one end of the spectrum, I can imagine a spec that anticipates all potential future questions; right?

Justin:

Right. Right.

Vincent:

It’s minimizing turns. You’re really gift-wrapping whatever it is you’re presenting to the other person. Like here, I’ve answered everything you could possibly imagine.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

On the other hand, it seems like that, A, that’s rare, and, B, that may not be the optimal process either. I think there’s a balance. What I sometimes find is that in marketing, especially someone may have an urgent and important request with a timeline in mind, but it’s missing a lot of information.

Justin:

Right. Right.

Vincent:

For someone to really implement that or execute on it, they need complete information to do it correctly, and I think that can be really annoying, personally.

Justin:

Yeah, definitely. I think the completeness of the spec is a good question. I think it’s probably something you can only figure out by trial and error.

I will say on the many occasions that I’ve been given something that is not complete, and the implicit instruction to me is, “Well, figure it out,” I think the problem with those is, if you don’t have an idea of what you’re trying to accomplish or you don’t know what you want on the spec, and we don’t have time to figure it out, then we definitely don’t have time to do the actual thing that we’re going to do. I think people forget that a lot. If you don’t have time to think through what you’re doing, you definitely don’t have time to do anything.

Vincent:

Right, and you don’t have time to evaluate whether it’s the right thing to do.

Justin:

Right. Exactly.

Vincent:

Some people have a sensitivity too when you push for more clarity or for thoroughness …

Justin:

Right. Definitely.

Vincent:

They may see it as you being, trying to roadblock it, which usually is not the case or almost always is not the case. I think some people are also a little bit uncomfortable with that too, because they may need to actually think through what they’re trying to do.

Justin:

Yeah.

Vincent:

They may realize that they’re missing information that they need, but they don’t have time to fetch it either, and yet their team doesn’t either. They don’t have this shared understanding of, A, what we’re trying to accomplish, or the shared understanding of where this idea even came from.

Justin:

Totally. Yeah, exactly.

That is a really good one, I think, for marketing teams is the spec one. I couldn’t tell you exactly what it means to have a marketing spec, but probably if you’re trying to evaluate the output of a marketing team, you should be looking at, to the extent to which they think through things before they’re doing them, that there’s some written document.

For me, for example, my team, and we literally have a 30-page playbook that shows the steps in every single thing we do. Do we always follow it? Of course not, but it exists, and it got written with a lot of effort, and it’s a fantastic tool. That’s the marketing ops mindset.

Vincent:

That seems like it would be really helpful for onboarding too.

Justin:

Oh, totally, yep.

Vincent:

Also, if you have all of this institutional knowledge that lives with just one person, now you remove that risk of having a single point of failure should they leave the organization, should they die in a plane crash, many different things.

Justin:

Right. Right. This podcast just got real dark, but that’s okay.

Vincent:

It did, yeah.

For listeners, I almost died on a plane a few weeks ago, but that can be another podcast episode.

Justin:

I just want everybody to know it was turbulence. It was severe turbulence, but it was not … no risk of death.

Vincent:

Turbulence, yeah.

One question I have, and this is a little bit of a weighted question, but Number 5 for Joel is, “Do you fix bugs before writing new code?”

Justin:

That was the next one I wanted to talk about.

Vincent:

Oh, great.

Justin:

What was your question?

Vincent:

Basically, and if I were to translate this into marketing, I would say, “Do you fix what’s broken before you keep running new tests or adding onto this debt that you eventually will need to work around?”

Justin:

Hard to work around, yep.

Vincent:

It becomes a burden to, A, manage, but it also becomes a burden to update.

To give a more tactical example, if you’re thinking about Google AdWords, for example, if you’ve ever inherited an account that had little guidance or multiple owners, and maybe it’s a legacy account that has been alive for five-plus years, the organization of that alone, just trying to understand what’s going on, both historically and then to the present, that’s one challenge in and of itself.

Justin:

Totally.

Vincent:

How has this account evolved over time, and what was for the good and what was for the bad?

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

Then, B, just actively managing it and reporting on it and making updates can be a real chore if, for example, things like the naming conventions are completely not intuitive …

Justin:

Which is a problem in software. Un-intuitive variable names, yeah.

Vincent:

Yes. The difference is that in engineering they dedicate resources to having a style guide, whereas in marketing …

Justin:

In theory.

Vincent:

Yeah, in theory. Google puts out some nice-looking style guides. Whether they follow them or not probably depends on the team.

Justin:

Google is definitely hitting all of the 12 points on the Joel test.

Vincent:

True.

Justin:

There’s no question about that.

Vincent:

True. True. Mozilla came to mind too. They do some great documentation. It would make everyone’s lives easier, but what’s the value add versus execution? I’m not sure.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

Getting back to this question of, “Do you fix bugs before writing new code?” I feel like marketing, unfortunately, I will always advocate and express, “Hey, this is the debt that we are inheriting or continue to inherit,” but I try to focus on the priorities, which is usually nearer or midterm returns. Then if we’re able to think about the long-term returns, which, in my opinion, would be housekeeping, cleaning up all the bugs that you might have or the debt you might have or confusion, then I think it’s worth addressing. I think it depends how steep the cost is.

Justin:

That’s complicated; right? If you can grow faster than you accumulate debt, then it makes sense to accumulate debt. A lot of high-growth companies will accumulate lots of technical debt and marketing debt, for that matter, because the theory is, “Well, the efforts that we’re doing to actually grow the business and stuff like that, make more sense to pursue than going back and fixing all of our variable names.”

Of course, that catches up with you one day, so then the question is, you have to top out your level of debt at such a point where you could pay the interest and not to get into a deep conversation about current accounts and GDP and stuff like that and countries borrowing money and things like that. That’s always a question in politics too, is the national debt, and is it big enough, and how much do we spend to service it and things like that. With any debt, I think there’s that issue. I think it applies to technical debt as well as marketing debt.

I think there’s also a question of bankruptcy, and I have participated in many marketing bankruptcies. The way you declare bankruptcy with an AdWords account is you take over an AdWords account and you say to your boss, “Hey, this is completely screwed up. We need to completely reorganize it. It’s going to take us two months to get back to where we are now with your CPA and conversion rate.” They need to decide whether that makes sense. I’ve done that with websites too. I brought in, people say, “This website’s completely broken.” It’s like, “Well, we can fix it. Here is what is required to go through and fix each piece, or do we just liquidate the website and restart it?” I think that’s an interesting question as well.

I think the trouble with marketing too is that it’s a little less clear what’s debt and what isn’t. For example, if we have website copy that I don’t think is very good, there’s no real definitive answer there. We can all sit down in a room and say, “Well, it doesn’t position us properly,” or, “It doesn’t reflect what we actually offer,” and those are certainly bad things. There’s a much deeper dive that you have to make to figure out, “Well, does it make sense to actually service this debt or update What’s the interest rate on this debt,” versus I feel like in a technical context it’s a little bit clearer, because you can benchmark the code. Again, there’s already much more traceability happening.

Vincent:

Agreed. I think one way that you can bring clarity to that too is, okay, well, what’s the expected reward and the required effort for this activity versus all of the other activities we might have on the table.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

Maybe you don’t have other things that you can actively be doing to generate growth in any way, so then it makes sense to go and revisit the copy.

Justin:

Totally.

Vincent:

I think that makes sense. I think it also depends on the company. It depends on the team. For example, some companies may grow in a way where the unit economics don’t make sense, but perhaps their goal is an acquisition.

Justin:

I think that goes back to maintainability. When you talked about style guide earlier, a Google-like engineering style guide has a great analogue in marketing. In marketing it’s called the style guide, and it is exactly the same thing. People often avoid actually sitting down and creating style guides and other documents like that, which are actually incredibly useful to understand the way the business is positioned, the way a brand talks about itself and how that fits with everything else. As you said, it also, or as you implied, it makes it much easier to hand off responsibilities to other people and onboard new people and hire new people and do more work, when you have that foundational stuff in place.

Vincent:

Agreed. I think it also just creates a thread of consistency across the company. If you look at MailChimp, I think voice and tone guide …

Justin:

They’re incredibly consistent.

Vincent:

Yeah, it’s incredibly consistent. You immediately understand, “Okay, all their emails, all of their … The copy for their UI, the website and so forth, is right on point with this style guide,” so I think that’s really impressive. It’s a demonstration of just discipline and I think well-executed content strategy as well.

Why don’t we transition and maybe sum up what we think some of the good questions would be for a Joel test as it applies to marketing.

Justin:

Yeah. What are some of the things that … We talked about source control and scheduling and bug databases and bug fixes and things like that. We didn’t talk about bug databases. Those all apply or don’t apply to marketing. I think there’s some specific ideas that you could actually ask about a marketing team that are not just run-over.

Vincent:

Yeah.

Justin:

One that I’ll throw out there is, “Can you attribute all of your customers to their originating channel and campaign?” I’ve gone into so many companies where they actually don’t know where they’re acquiring users. It seems like a super basic test, but I would argue a lot of the things in the Joel test are really basic too, and people still don’t do them.

Vincent:

I agree. I think that’s why it’s a great sniff test, because I’ve seen a lot of companies, where if you ask them who their target audience is, they’re like, “Well, really we’re one of those unique companies that can apply to anyone or everyone.” It’s like, “No, you can’t.” Then it’s like, “Is it senior leadership? Is it junior marketers?” They’re like, “Well, we really want to connect with everyone.” It just doesn’t work that way. When you speak to everyone, you speak to no one.

Justin:

Right. You spin your wheels a lot.

Vincent:

I think that doesn’t work. Your question, “Can you attribute all of your customers to the originating channel and campaign,” do you think some companies can’t answer that because attribution, by default, is tricky when you think about cross device and you think about online and offline, or do you think we make it more complicated than it needs to be, or we just don’t spend enough time on it. Where do you think the problem is?

Justin:

I think attribution, it’s, first of all, just a really interesting topic. Where does the problem come from? I think part of the problem is that people don’t conceptually … You have to have a really good conceptual grasp of marketing, like, a pretty clear model of how marketing works, and that is very challenging.

I come into a lot of places where I’ve talked about, “Where do we get … What are our acquisition channels?” People will say, “Well, it’s a webinar,” or, “It’s the website.” Actually, those aren’t acquisition channels, because a webinar is on the website, and it doesn’t tell you what medium they actually came through. Also, with any categorization like that, all of the channels have to be mutually exclusive. That is, you can only be in one channel at a time and have to be collectively exhaustive, which means that you cover every single possibility. Now, of course you can have an “Other” category if you need to.

Without that sort of conceptual grasp of, “Okay, these are what our channels really are. This is what acquisition really means,” I think it’s really hard to even figure out what the basics are, let alone then actually go on to implement it. The implementation part, this test, as far as I’m concerned, is literally just about the very first touch. There’s a long conversation we could have about all the touches in the middle and the last touch and re-engagement and all these other things. I actually just proposing a test that’s, “Do you know in the first instance where …”

Vincent:

I think that’s a good indicator, because if they can’t answer that question, where there’s smoke there’s fire. If they haven’t even thought about the first touch, then that’s a big indicator that it’s either a gigantic marketing opportunity for you and maybe a huge uphill internal battle.

Justin:

Right. Right.

Vincent:

Maybe a not so high-functioning marketing team.

Justin:

Also, imagine trying to come into any marketing team where, because you don’t know where you’re acquiring people, you probably don’t know where to spend your money, and so how can you really make an impact at that organization and know you’ve made an impact.

Vincent:

Yeah. I think the only exception would be if they were craving someone to come in and be like, “Help us.”

Justin:

And fix it, absolutely.

Vincent:

And fix it. I think another question would be, “Do you have a unique value proposition for each customer segment?”

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

It’s implying that you have customer segments, but from there do you have a unique value proposition for each, because if you’re Dropbox, your proposition to consumer is going to be much different than it is to a business.

Justin:

Totally. Although, if you market to everybody, that’s only one segment, so you’re good on that one. I’m just kidding.

The unique value proposition is really interesting too, because that is actually a really fundamental, conceptual piece of marketing is, “What do we offer to these people that nobody else offers?” That’s not exactly what it is, because I can’t remember my business school definition of it, and the fact that I can’t remember it is a good indication of how weak a lot of people’s grasp is on it, because I should be able to tell you exactly what a UVP is. It’s hard.

If you have a unique value proposition, that indicates that, as you suggested, you know who your product is for because of the segments. You know what it’s for, and you know what direction to develop it in. It also, again, indicates that you have maybe a grasp on marketing fundamentals.

Vincent:

Yeah, I agree. I think it also means that your organization has a level of maturity where you’ve acknowledged some weakness. It’s like the engineering principle that you can’t be the fastest, the highest quality and the cheapest.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

You have to compromise on one of those three.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

Have we made a choice to cater and tailor ourselves to every enterprise customer, or are we the fastest, easiest to deploy and the cheapest? I think there’s also a trade-off there. I think when a company is able to acknowledge that rather than seeing all of their features and benefits as strengths, that’s really helpful as a marketer as well, because then you can get really specific with your copy and the way that you’re thinking about your messaging.

Justin:

Exactly. It constrains your action. If your unique value proposition is X, then you’re not going to A/B test a version of your page that is Y or A. You’re going to stick in that area.

The other thing I would say is there’s a great little phrase related to this, which is that, “The essence of positioning is sacrifice.” Basically, that means that when you take a position with your product, the whole point of taking a position is that you don’t take a bunch of other positions. It forces you to actually have a strategy as well, which I think is something that a lot of people don’t think about.

Vincent:

Yeah, I agree. What’s another Spolsky test question as it applies to marketing?

Justin:

Two that I think are really important, and I don’t know if the bar is too high on these. “Do you know your customer lifetime value,” and, “Do you know your customer acquisition cost, ideally, by channel?”

So many people at relatively large companies don’t know these numbers, and there are a lot of reasons that people give for not knowing these numbers, which basically boil down to it’s too complicated. Those are absolutely fundamental to the business, because if you don’t know your customer lifetime value … I should modify this. It shouldn’t be, “Do you know those numbers?” It should be, “Do you have a model for these numbers?”

Vincent:

Yeah.

Justin:

You don’t have to know, and it’s going to change all the time, but if you don’t have somewhere where somebody is tracking, “This is what we think it is, and this is why,” it makes it a lot harder to make decisions about what you should be doing and how much you can spend.

Vincent:

Yeah, absolutely. I think really the point is that they should at least have a range, a proxy number, they should be revisiting something.

Justin:

Right.

Vincent:

Otherwise, you really don’t know if your acquisition efforts are getting better, where the leak in the funnel is. Is it that the average basket size is too small? Is it that customers are churning really rapidly? Is it that they don’t buy frequently enough? I think when you go through the steps of figuring out your customer lifetime value, you also get a better understanding of the levers you have to influence the average value of each customer and the profit you’re going to reap from each customer you acquire. Then you can understand where to deploy your efforts too.

Maybe your customer acquisition cost really isn’t going to get much lower, so really you need to heavy up on the retention side. Maybe that’s email marketing or direct mail or spending more money on customer service when people call to cancel an account. It could be a number of things, but I think going through that activity of, “Yeah, what is our customer lifetime value,” and then, “What’s our customer acquisition cost,” which is super easy to calculate. Yeah, I’m also surprised when companies don’t know that, and they usually don’t.

It also boils down to you can work backwards from that. If a customer is worth $100, then how much is a new visitor to your site? How much is a new lead worth to your site? How much is a new email address? You can really assign a value to all those things. Then you can evaluate what tools to use based on that.

Justin:

Yeah, totally.

Vincent:

Do we need optimize an A/B testing? If we’re able to increase email capture by 10%, what does that mean? How much would we pay for that otherwise? Yeah, I think it lets you make much clearer decisions when you at least have a model, to your point, for evaluating this. You’re never going to be on the money when it comes to customer lifetime value or customer acquisition cost.

Justin:

Totally. Exactly. Should we talk about, do you have one more that you like that we should talk about before we wrap up?

Vincent:

Yeah. I like this one. “Do you have a process for prioritizing ideas and work, and is that public?” Is this your own internal process, where you’re managing all these inputs, or really is there a public board and a shared place where everyone can view why people are working on what it is that they’re working on.

Justin:

Totally.

Vincent:

And declining other work for various reasons?

Justin:

Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think having, again, not to just rehash what you just said, but having an actual way that you sit down and make decisions and during those conversations you say, “We’re going to do this, so we’re not going to do this.” I think a lot of times marketers can become confused about what value they really add to the organization, and so there’s a temptation to try to do lots of different things rather than focusing on a few really strategic things and, frankly, saying to others in the organization, “Well, this makes sense and we should do it, but right now it’s de-prioritized so that we can do this other thing.”

I think that comes back to some of the things we were talking about about traceability and whether you know what your results are, because when you know your results and you know what the effect that things have is, it’s a lot easier to say, “Well, we’re not going to do this” and have the person who requested it not take that personally, because they understand that it’s best for the organization. That’s hard. This is all the Joel test for marketing, but it’s hard to find companies that do even a few of these things.

Vincent:

Yeah. I agree. I think another really nice thing about a company that has that transparent process is for a lot of people, it’s important to understand why a particular decision is made or why a certain priority is a priority, and people may not always express that, but I think internally that’s important to understand. It also helps you trust other people’s judgement a lot more.

For me personally, I think it’s a good sign when people are able to say, “No, we’re focused on this, and we won’t do that because of … X, Y or Z,” but I think that’s a good thing. When people are actively and regularly saying no to one another, that’s great.

Justin:

And explaining why.

Vincent:

Yeah, and explaining why, yes.

Justin:

No. Great.

Vincent:

Although, that would be kind of funny.

Justin:

That’s the Joel test for marketing or at least as far as we got through it. We’ll probably revisit this in a later episode, because I think there’s a lot more to talk about here.

Did you have any other final thoughts you wanted to throw in there, Vincent, before we wrap up?

Vincent:

I think that’s it.

Justin:

Cool.

Thank you so much for listening. We are Vincent Barr and Justin Dunham. You can find us on Twitter at @JWyattD, J-W-Y-A-T-T-D.

Vincent, can you remind everybody of what your handle is?

Vincent:

Sure. It’s VincentBarr …

Justin:

With two R’s.

Vincent:

Vincent Barr, two R’s, one B.