On this week's episode of What’s at Stake, Penta Partner Bryan DeAngelis sits down with Emily Vaughan, Senior Director of Client Services, Natalie Bahmanyar, Associate Director of Policy Insiders, and Sehare Hemani, Director of Research, to dissect the Washington Insights Review, Penta’s annual report based on hundreds of conversations with D.C. policymakers.
The group dives into the complexity of the rapidly evolving digital world, and how technological advancements like artificial intelligence are impacting the business and policy landscape. Bryan, Emily, Sehare, and Natalie explain that policymakers are looking to rely on industry for education and expertise to shape regulation. The conversation also highlights best practices for improving advocacy directed towards policymakers and staff—who are increasingly reliant on technology.
On this week's episode of What’s at Stake, Penta Partner Bryan DeAngelis sits down with Emily Vaughan, Senior Director of Client Services, Natalie Bahmanyar, Associate Director of Policy Insiders, and Sehare Hemani, Director of Research, to dissect the Washington Insights Review, Penta’s annual report based on hundreds of conversations with D.C. policymakers.
The group dives into the complexity of the rapidly evolving digital world, and how technological advancements like artificial intelligence are impacting the business and policy landscape. Bryan, Emily, Sehare, and Natalie explain that policymakers are looking to rely on industry for education and expertise to shape regulation. The conversation also highlights best practices for improving advocacy directed towards policymakers and staff—who are increasingly reliant on technology.
Welcome to another episode of what's At Stake, a Penta podcast. I'm your host, brian DeAndre, a partner here at Penta Group, and I'm joined today by some of my colleagues from Penta's intelligence team Emily Vaughn, our Senior Director of Client Services, natalie Bamenyar, associate Director of Policy Insiders, and Sahair Hemeny, director of Research. Thank you all for joining this week.
Speaker 2:Happy to be here. Thanks for having us, yeah thanks.
Speaker 1:We're going to talk today, take a little dive into the newest edition of the Washington Insights Review. This is our annual report, based on hundreds of conversations we have with policymakers, especially in the federal government but kind of across the globe, which we'll talk about a little bit, and it highlights the top policy priorities, provides some key insights into the advocacy landscape here in DC. So Emily, Natalie and Sahair is going to help us kind of dig into all of this and let's jump right into it. So, as I was saying, we literally do hundreds of conversations with policymakers each year. We've been doing this for about 10 years. Can you help break this down a little bit more? Who do you guys talk to? How do you gather the data on policymaker priorities? Maybe Sahair? I'll start with you.
Speaker 3:Sure, yeah, let me break it down with audience and methodology separately. So when we're thinking about the audience for this research, it really comes back to who does our client care about? Who do they want to hear from Whose perspective is going to have some business implications or decisions that they can make? So that scope really varies from a pretty local state level to a federal level to outside of the US and into the EU, uk and beyond. But typically the folks that we're speaking to are going to be folks that are pretty senior on the Hill in agencies that. Those are people like chief of staffs, ledger directors, policy advisors.
Speaker 3:In the EU that's folks in the parliament or the commission or member states even, and then on state projects it's again pretty localized. So we're still dipping into ledge executive agencies, but also municipal and hearing from folks at hyper-local levels if that's of interest to our clients. In terms of sample, we do a pretty good job of getting representation right and ensuring we have things that matter like demographics, policy or party affiliation, things of that nature. What I think is pretty cool in terms of what PENTA does and how we approach this is our ability to tap into some really niche audience needs that our clients have. Let me give you an example from this past cohort of research. We chose to do a little bit more of a focus on PACs in our federal research and because of that we needed to tap into individuals that took the no PAC pledge, which is a pretty small universe when you think about the relative population, and we have an extraordinary talent at PENTA to tap into those niche audiences and get their perspective on subjects that are pretty focused.
Speaker 1:Let me just follow up quickly. So what makes policymakers choose to participate in this research? We go out and recruit them, but why are they interested in engaging?
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's a question we ask in the interviews as well. Why are you talking to us and why are you giving us valuable time of yours? I think it falls into three buckets. One they get the reciprocal nature of the work that we do, both from a strategy level and a tactical level. What they're sharing with us, what they tell us is important to them, ends up on the advocacy agendas of our clients and how private organizations set those agendas.
Speaker 3:Also, it changes how those organizations show up to conversations with policymakers and how they choose to develop that relationship over a longer period of time and what they come into that conversation with. The other thing that we hear, of course, is the content that's being developed and reciprocated back to policymakers. It's really helpful for them to have that perspective of how does their perspective fit into the larger narrative that's taking place on the Hill or at agencies. And then lastly, and this is my favorite policymakers are nerds and I think all of us in this room can really appreciate that fact. They absolutely are invested in creating an impact On the research end. The researchers do a really good job of finding out what matters to these individuals before we get on the phone and having a custom agenda and really picking topics that they care about as a former Hill staffer, I take that as a badge of honor.
Speaker 3:I appreciate it.
Speaker 1:I was meant to be said, and it was helpful to participate in your previous research when I was up there and a lot of this work to exactly your points. You get a better sense of what those corporations are coming up to the Hill with. You get a chance to say what you're looking for and some of the data that comes out of that.
Speaker 1:So, and, Natalie, this is a little bit of your work too, Like we bring these folks in and it's not just a one-time thing they become part of what we call Penta policy insiders. How does that fit into the kind of broader picture here?
Speaker 4:Yeah, so that's the name that we kind of gave the community of people who participate in both our qualitative and our quantitative research. To kind of echo what Sahara said, it's the policymakers, the senior policy staff, the senior officials that we talk to across the board, both domestically, globally, and it's the folks that can really speak to the different dynamics that are happening on the political landscape, so that the website and that community sort of houses those people and also the content that Sahara mentioned that comes out of the work that we do. That goes back to the policymakers so it gives them sort of a designated space where they can see that content, where they can find the pieces that they might be interested in, both based on where they're from and what they might be interested in, and it also gives them that unique perspective back to them about what their peers are thinking about certain policy issues and the stuff that is important to them.
Speaker 1:And Emily, let me bring you into this. So we think about those policy insiders, but what are their capabilities? This meant to have to inform stakeholders also on the kind of state level and the global level as well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we work with a number of organizations. I mean, if you're a corporation operating and kind of on the radar of policymakers in Washington, you are cared about the policymakers in your home state, where your headquarters is. You probably are working on a global scale. You care about what's happening in the EU and other places that are sort of driving a lot of these regulatory conversations. So yeah, as Sahara mentioned, we work with organizations to help them understand what's happening in DC, what's happening in their delegation in DC. So, if you're from California, what's happening in Alex Patea's office, what's happening in Katie Porter's office, and then, similarly, what's happening down at the state level, especially California, is a particularly interesting one, because I always say what California is to America, america is to the world a little bit ahead a little bit kind of pushing the conversation Exactly and so kind of helping them understand what's the landscape there, what's and how does this differ?
Speaker 2:and how do you kind of tailor what you're doing and what the needs are of these different levels and even, as far as I said, sahara mentioned to local communities, like what do people, what does the mayor or the city council or the health board if you're a healthcare organization think about your action and the action of your members or the action of what you're doing in communities where you are actually present?
Speaker 1:Yeah, and a lot of what we do here at Bentay. We talk about helping clients kind of strengthen their decision, making it up on our understanding of stakeholders, and this is one piece in that puzzle and talk a little bit about how that fits in with some of the other work we do on media intelligence and reputation intelligence.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think one thing we talk about at Penta all the time is the idea that there are lots of different stakeholder groups that have lots of different opinions and lots of different incentives and motivations, and if you are a company or an association representing companies, you need to sort of meet all of those needs and understand all of them.
Speaker 2:Like your employees might be asking for something that will perhaps run afoul of one party in Washington, or what you're doing at the state level and what's to be added to view in California might create challenges with what's happening in the EU, and so I think the way that we think about it is we want to help the organizations we work with understand how to balance those two things and thread the needle. So understand what do your investors want, what do they expect of you, what do your employees want, what do policymakers want, and help them understand who of those stakeholder groups are the most germane to what you're doing and how do you balance the needs of all of them. I mean, I focus mostly on the policymakers side of stuff, which is its own internal, like you're saying, like your stakeholder groups within policymakers are different. What Democrats want is often not what Republicans want. Shocker, but yeah, so a lot of what we're doing here is helping companies at least understand the landscape so they can make really informed decisions.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's great.
Speaker 3:The one thing I'd add to Emily's perspective there too, is that we have a pretty robust quantitative metrics that we supply our clients with, and what's really interesting about the interplay of the quant and qualitative research that we do at the federal level is you get that robust data set and then Qual helps clients understand the story behind the numbers. It brings to the forefront how those perspectives are being formed and what's informing those perspectives. Qual helps tell the story behind those metrics and brings to the forefront how those perspectives are really being formed and, in scenarios where that is in a great perspective, what it's going to take to change that for policymakers. So that interplay between the two methodologies is really interesting.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's a really good point. Let's dive a little bit into what you guys are seeing this year. So what are some of the emerging issues that came up as sort of top priorities for policymakers?
Speaker 4:Yeah, so it was really interesting because I think it was one of the times that we saw a pretty uniform alignment between policymakers and like what was on their mind and what was on the mind of the general public. Tech, and particularly AI and that of being like a really prominent theme for policymakers this year really just sort of in every aspect that you can think of, ai was something that they were talking about, whether it came to the upcoming elections or whether it came to like its use in their day-to-day lives. Ai and cybersecurity were like the two big things that kind of had a through line for everything they were talking about.
Speaker 1:Not a huge surprise maybe to say because AI is everywhere, but how informed, would you say, policymakers are on artificial intelligence and I guess even other emerging technologies?
Speaker 4:Yeah, so it was really interesting to hear their perspectives on it and the fact that they are actually like actively desperate for information on it. It's not something that they feel like they know enough about, especially given how rapidly it's evolving. There's a lot of questions about just what is it. What is AI? How do you define it? And that leads to questions of how do you regulate it. But if you can't define it, you can't regulate it, so you have a lot of commentary on even people who are in offices that may inherently be suspicious of working with big industries and big companies.
Speaker 4:They're looking to those experts in order to get some clarity on what it is, where it's going, so that they can make more informed decisions around it. And I think it's really interesting because we also in the Washington Insights Review, when we covered the section, we ourselves tried to map out a definition of AI for them, and we ran into a struggle because there's also so many different sources and even in the community, people define it differently. There are some key kind of tenets that most people can agree on, but we were trying to give something back to them that was like here, this is what it is. We actually can't do it either, so no wonder they're confused. So it was really interesting to hear that and it was a very prominent thing that they want more information and they want more clarity and they're hoping that industry can help them with that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this is often a big challenge in Washington. Everything gets lumped into a broad bucket where it's AI or it's crypto or it's tech, but there's as we've talked a lot about on the podcast and in other places, there's a lot of pieces of AI, A lot of rapidly moving pieces Right that are rapidly changing. So that makes regulating AI pretty complex. How can the technology industry really help policymakers kind of sort through this?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that makes a ton of sense. And even to build on what Natalie said, one interesting thing that we've heard from policymakers, not just this year but in prior years, is that there's a lot of concern about the just knowledge on the hill, in particular, around tech and emerging technologies. By its nature, business and tech moves faster than policy. People who've been out of the private sector for a long time, have been specializing in other things, don't necessarily understand it, and we've heard a lot about the brain drain in the tech space from the hill, as people sometimes they're not people who have that kind of knowledge and expertise are moving on and doing other things with their careers and not necessarily it's not being replaced with someone who is now an AI expert, which makes regulating really hard, because one of the challenges is that policymakers not only don't necessarily know how to wrap their arms around the breadth of something like AI which, like you said, brian, this is wildly amorphous could be anything, but they also don't necessarily have the expertise to have those through lines of what is your regulatory action going to do to the industry at large, to other industries? What are these sort of knock-on effects?
Speaker 2:One really good example which I'm going to cite the EU because this is the place that happened before, but the Cyber Resilience Act that was passed in the EU in 2023, or was that not passed?
Speaker 2:I guess it was sort of up for debate and it was. The EU process was complicated, but the way that it was structured required a level of reporting out that made the concept of open source technology almost impossible to be included in any kind of technological regulation, and that was not the intent. The intent of the Cyber Resilience Act is looking at a place like Ukraine and saying we have to protect against cyber attacks. We're looking at a place like these sort of geopolitical things, and the regulatory scheme that came up with actually made it such that most of the internet is built on open source and most code is built on open source, and there was concern that maybe you would just have to erase all of that. It would not be possible to source that back in the EU, and I think that's the piece of the regulatory side. That's really hard is that it's going to be hard no matter what, but because the expertise is so concentrated and the few people who are kind of on that bleeding edge, it's hard for regulators to get ahead of it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you raise some good points too that these technological advances, and something especially like AI, don't know borders.
Speaker 2:No, you do not.
Speaker 1:You're seeing the EU already act on this at the end of last year. Obviously everyone's heard about kind of our chips competition with China and where we're going to go with this, and so Congress has a lot, not only to get up to speed on their own but how? Do they keep up with the rest of the world? Just regulating this and balance our leadership innovation with like completely per thousand points and the way that policy.
Speaker 2:we ask policymakers every year what are your top priorities, and you can even see in the way they're thinking about it Every one of their top priorities is attached back to technology in some capacity. So they're talking about the economy is a top priority shocker, but you know that's like tech is a driving part of the economy. The national security is a top five priority. Well, that is very embedded in the idea of cybersecurity and sort of how these technologies play out. The environment, talking about AVs and EVs and technological advancement. So it's a real. It's a real challenge and a through line, I think, through everything that people are thinking about.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I wanted to get back to that, especially because we are in an election year. I mean cybersecurity popped up as a big issue for policymakers, I imagine, but educate me if I'm wrong. Some of that is both. You mentioned Ukraine the kind of geopolitical risks we're seeing in the world there's obviously. We've already seen AI doctor. Biden videos and the campaign trail, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more. How concerned are policymakers about that aspect of it.
Speaker 4:What we were hearing is that they're actually pretty concerned. I think the idea of AI and disinformation excuse me are very much like tied together and that comes with not just the election stuff, like when we talked to them about. Like what they want to see in advocacy materials to it like comes out in that lens as well. But you know there's concerns about AI being used to skew voters in one direction or another to get them to, you know, not vote at all.
Speaker 4:I think that happened with the Biden robo call recently where they were you know, and so it's already happening and I think that makes it that much harder when the people who need to regulate it don't really know how to regulate it, especially in an election year. There's also a lot of general concern about like election infrastructure and like protecting the workers and the volunteers as they're trying to do their jobs on those days, and the concern is expressed. The solution has not been like. I think it's one of those things that they all know is a problem, but they don't really know what to do about it?
Speaker 1:Are they looking for industry to help solve it and take a piece of it, or I think? I think, I'd data to help them make their decision.
Speaker 4:I think it's a little bit of both I think they want that guidance from industry in order to be able to, like there is a consensus that action is needed, right, but they can't do that without the proper information. So they want, I think, tech companies to take that initiative and take that, even offer them up the information so that they have that stuff at their disposal and they can kind of go in and then make the choices that they need to make. And I think this is a little bit of a tangent. But another thing that we were seeing a lot of commentary on is the fact that they want to create that regulatory structure without sort of putting a cap on innovation and like preventing the speed of this stuff from I don't really think anyone can stop the speed of it, but like they don't want to slow down that process and like prevent people from being able to do some really exciting things.
Speaker 1:So it's, you know, they're balancing that line with it this is my next question for all of you, like, there is no, it's a perfect segue. You know there is this. We talked a little bit about this international competitiveness, and we want US companies to be innovating, also coming out of COVID, we want to make sure they've kind of secured their supply chain and their workers so they can continue to compete, both at home and abroad, I assume. But you will all educate me, that's top of mind for policymakers. At the same time, they have to kind of bring this regulation to it. So how does all that connectedness excuse me come through?
Speaker 3:on the research, this is where some of the comparative policy analysis that we're able to do between the US and EU research is really quite fascinating, because it really does reveal those tensions that are happening around interconnectedness and competitiveness and maintaining that within the geographical boundaries right.
Speaker 3:You see, both the US and the EU push for autonomy within their regions. The other side of that coin, though, is maintaining innovation and maintaining relationships broadly between the true regions. In our EU research, what we often hear policymakers mention is the Inflation Reduction Act, right, and how the IRA is incentivizing on-shoring to the US EU companies, and ultimately, what that reveals is the policy mechanisms between these two regions and how quickly and effectively they can mobilize things like subsidies to create incentives for these companies. So in that situation, the US has a bit more agility than the EU, and so questions that we're thinking about with this upcoming cohort of research with both regions is how the elections is going to create more incentives for programs that allow organizations to maintain that competitive edge and allow for both these regions to be the home for that.
Speaker 2:Well, sarah, it's interesting too. And, speaking to this idea of trade-offs, one of the things that is a through line that I don't think we've talked about yet is this idea of how all these tie up together in workforce. That's a good point and, yeah, people care about the competitiveness and their communities and they care about this sort of thing, but they're also really worried about the. Ira is a jobs act in many capacities. It's about bringing some of these good middle class jobs historically back to the United States, but at the same time, that has a countervailing thing of. Ai also fundamentally is going to change our workforce. I mean, we've seen it, even if you look at historical manufacturing, the advent of robotics really sort of decimated. It's not just the fact that things are being offshore, it's the fact that it's more efficient to do things with less people. Ai is bringing that into office buildings now.
Speaker 2:Right the white collar jobs, I mean someone's coming for my job. I don't have to read something. I can make chat, GPT do it, but I think that's also you have to read more now.
Speaker 2:That's all I'm saying yes, exactly, exactly. I'm really good at reading summaries instead of raw data, but also say that that's part of the challenge too is that I think a lot of these kind of this interconnectedness is that everyone's thinking about, not just how do I protect my country's economy, but how do I protect the workforce and how I protect the job opportunities of my citizens and my constituents and everything both in both the United States and globally as well.
Speaker 4:And I think just to piggyback off of that, one of the things that came out of COVID was also this sort of lens of how do we protect American people's resources and the economy here when things shut down abroad, which kind of speaks to again why there's a lot of this conversation which is actually getting bipartisan support, which is a nice thing to see, that they're agreeing on the idea of bringing more things back to just sort of. I think before COVID that interdependence was a little bit less of an issue, but now when we saw how things shut down after just around the world, it's definitely been something that's been more top of mind and trying to make sure and like ensure that stability and security, just in case. It's a little bit more proactive now.
Speaker 1:I think the conversation yeah, we could go really deep.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah, but before we run out of time, I want to get to my favorite part of the report, which is the advocacy section, because not to get on my stool here a little bit, but I feel like Washington too much like just runs the same old playbook over and, over and over again, and there's some really good insights into how organizations are breaking through, how to effectively communicate with policymakers, and that does evolve over time, whether it's AI, whether it's post COVID. So maybe just for the final few minutes, what are you guys seeing in terms of what's really standing out to help policymakers?
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean there's kind of the tried and true stuff of like be proactive, build that relationship before the fire breaks out. Right, be concise, be localized, show how this impacts their constituents or interests in that locality. But there's some really interesting examples, really fun examples, I think, that come through in the research as well, of what has actual stickiness over time. Right, there's the site visits is one that comes up, even if years after it has occurred. Interactions with senior leadership has come up.
Speaker 3:My favorite example, though and I will try to be vague here to protect the client, but they consistently every year, drop off a piece of swag that is representative of the company, and when they do that, they've noticed that it's being collected year over year. It has a level of stickiness and it has a level of reputation building that taps into other sensory capabilities that one pager just can't right. So there are other examples of really sticky ways to stay top of mind that we've heard in the research. The last thing I'll add there, too, is that be thoughtful about the terminology and who you're speaking with, because the terminology can be used in a way that closes the door before you even get to start the conversation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's true, and you're constantly reeducating as the hill, obviously as a ton of turnover. But, emily, you've seen some certain organizations like really kind of pop out with policymakers. What are they doing that gets your attention?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that, to Sahara's point, if you can do having an event or some kind of activation thing, it actually really does make a big difference. There are all sorts of things that I think we get into in the Washington Insights review about what makes that worthwhile, but I think that it's that taking something and really personalizing it and tailoring it to who you're trying to reach. I think we take AI and TAC as an example. We hear stories in the several years I've been involved in this research of people who were like oh, I went to an offsite and they showed me how to use it. I sat in an autonomous vehicle, they showed me how to play with this piece of consumer electronics and I sort of understood it and I sort of got that tactile, really cool experience.
Speaker 2:I think those companies were able to take what they're doing, even if they're not, even if you're not in a local district and able to localize it, which is obviously, I think every advocate knows that that's, tell me how many jobs are in my town in Kentucky or Idaho.
Speaker 2:But being able to show, have that kind of memorable experience in terms of really kind of educate in a way that is not patronizing, is not self-serving but is really saying I'm trying to capacity build has been really, is really sticky. I mean we hear people talk about specific, specific instances again, like years later, and doing it with stories too. I mean I think one thing, going back to Natalie's comment about COVID every year we hear for the last three years we've heard a story about have you heard about these little girls who during COVID didn't have internet and they had to go to insert fast food chain? It's been McDonald's, it's been Taco Bell, it's been KFC, it's been all of them and they have to do that. And so these kind of images really stick in people's minds, and organizations that are able to kind of create those stories and those kind of powerful images are really able to kind of be memorable in a slew of information.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's a good point. We have a very simple messaging rule around here of show and tell. Like. People want data. Your research shows that they want that. But that hands-on experience where you get to show them something, they get to experience it. I won't name names, but years ago I helped a beer company and they literally bring members to go like brew their own beer and talk about core memories Like that sticks with policymakers forever.
Speaker 2:Oh, completely.
Speaker 2:And the site visit thing too.
Speaker 2:I mean we've had I would say again, try not to name names, but we've had even like reputationally challenged companies that have gone through real, actual scandals get really positive accolades for showing people other facilities, which is in a showing like yes, this is what you read about us in the news and you might not like what you read about us in the news, but here is John Doe who works in our factory and here is John Doe's colleague who does the accounting and here's how we've invested in John and his colleagues' community and that stuff is really powerful and it really helps counteract. We see it actually in the qualitative that Risa Harib was talking about, like here's the story that I remember. We also see it in the quantitative of when we track folks' reputation and perceptions of organizations over time in DC the companies we see that kind of we surprise us for, like really that they're doing pretty well. Often we'll hear in the call oh well, they had these like really tactical things about showing folks what their value is, independent of what the national narrative might be.
Speaker 4:Well, it's like personalizing it by making it, by showing it's personal to the people that it impacts, right. So it's not, it's putting faces to an issue or to a cause, and I think that's kind of coming back to what the policymakers are talking about, like that's something that has been consistent. But also I think they're kind of expressing more of a desire for that, where they want to do those site visits, they want to go out with the company and do deliveries, they want to be able to sit in a room with the people who are actually making decisions and get their perspectives and talk to them about the choices that they're making, because it's personal that way.
Speaker 2:Well, and to be a conduit, you know, we had some policymakers talk about the fact that what an organization can connect them with their constituents on issues and like that's such a. I had not thought about it in that capacity, but they're like, oh yeah, you know, if so, and so wants to help me set up an event where I get to come and talk to people that I might not be able to talk to otherwise. Like, do some of that legwork, which is also, again, you can do it in district, you can do it in DC, but it's making those connections are really powerful, yeah, bringing those people here.
Speaker 4:I think it's something to be said because I feel like people on the Hill, like in these agencies, they're constantly being handed papers right, so anytime that they can have an experience that goes along with the information that they're being given, it makes it just that much more memorable. To kind of backtrack to what Sarah was saying about relationship building, that's something that we've consistently seen as a theme in the years that I've been working on what in the Washington Insights Review, and it's one of those things where you know they don't want an email once in a blue moon just being like, hey, how's it going? When you can really put that touch out there and make it something consistent, make it something that you're known for like you were talking about SWAT or whatever it is, you build a relationship that has a foundation to it. They're much more likely to open the email out of the thousand they received that day.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's a good point. Fortunately, we have to leave it there, but certainly more to come on all of this in future episodes. So, emily Natalie Sahar, thank you so much for joining us on what's At Stake today. We appreciate it, happy to be here.
Speaker 2:Thank you, thanks, brian, it was fun.
Speaker 1:For our listeners. You can check out all of our episodes of what's At Stake by subscribing to the Penta Podcast Channel. Wherever you get your podcasts, you can also find us on X or Twitter at PentaGRP, linkedin, at Penta Group. I'm your host, brian DeAndros, as always. Thanks for listening.