Loading summary

Transcript30 lines

[00:00]
A
Nerd Alert. Learning is important, right?
[00:02]
B
Yes, exactly. What a bunch of nerds.
[00:05]
A
Nerd alert.
[00:06]
B
Right. Marketing Architects. Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Alana Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects. And I'm joined by my co host, Rob demars, the chief product architect of misfits and machines.
[00:23]
A
Hello, Elena.
[00:24]
B
Hello. We're back with your weekly Nerd Alert. Every week I'll take a deep dive into academic marketing research and translate its complex ideas into simple, understandable language for Rob, and of course, for all of you. Are you ready to nerd out, Rob?
[00:36]
A
Oh, I was just watching a car commercial that was so aggressively forgettable that by the end I actually forgot it was a car commercial. I forgot I owned a car. And I briefly forgot my own name. I mean, it was 30 seconds of beige. I came to on the couch like I'd been anesthetized by an automobile.
[01:00]
B
Sounds pretty dull. Like a very dull advertisement.
[01:03]
A
It was dull.
[01:04]
B
Yeah. I'm sure you're looking for a cure for that, which you're in luck because that's what we're talking about today. We're talking about a report which is called the Cure for Dull. It's from our friends at System One, and it's basically a sequel to the report that made a lot of noise a couple years ago. I'm sure you remember it, Rob. The Extraordinary Cost of Dull was a very popular report from them. So this is exploring the same idea. Most advertising makes people feel absolutely nothing. But this time, instead of just diagnosing the problem they wanted to see, could we also suggest a solution? But before I get into the study, Rob, quick question. What was the last ad you remember feeling like really strongly about? It really captured your attention and emotion.
[01:45]
A
This is a hard question. Cause there's a lot of commercials that certainly have caught my attention, but ones that have, like, really made me feel. Feel something deeply are few. And you know, back when I was in. In college and, you know, liked advertising as a student, you'd actually hang an ad on the wall, right? That's like something you do. You'd actually, like, put it up with a thumbtack on the wall. And I still remember this one, which of course was for Nike because everybody was in the 90s in love with the Nike brand for. But it was a picture of a woman running in the desert and it said, there's still places where radio waves can't reach you. Nike, just do it. And I still Feel that. I still remember that. I mean, it's, it was 1997 when I saw that and I still feel something when I see that ad.
[02:39]
B
Yeah, that's a great one. I was thinking at the super bowl this year when Budweiser did the Free Bird and ad with the, the Clydesdale, like the bald eagle. That definitely like made me teary eyed for some reason.
[02:51]
A
I gotcha.
[02:52]
B
Yeah, but no, it's sometimes hard to think about actually. Like, when's the last time I saw an ad that really made me feel
[02:57]
A
something, like truly made you feel. You know, there's plenty of ads where you laugh or you're feeling something, but like something that really connects in the soul. Those are harder to come by for sure.
[03:07]
B
And we're not saying that a good ad has to be that, but it's definitely hard to think about this paper. It's called the Cure for Dull. It was published this year by System One, as well as some other smart people like Adam Morgan, who's from Eat Big Fish, former guest on the show, and effectiveness researcher Peter field. Attention researcher Dr. Karen Nelson Field, not related to Peter Field, just same last name and creative researcher Orlando Wood and John Evans. So back in 2023, they put out this report, Extraordinary Costa Doll. They looked at over 80,000 ads. They found that brands were collectively wasting an extra $189 billion a year in media. And just to get the same results that emotionally engaging ads got for free. If you remember, they had that really fun thing where they had people watch cows grazing and they found that it was more engaging than most of the ads, which was so sad. It's so funny. I mean, cows are lovely, but still they are. So a few years later they've gone back in and written this. So, Rob, back then they looked at ads, right? They found their recent money ads are really dull. Do you think advertising has gotten more or less dull over time?
[04:16]
A
Did they do it by channel or did they say in this study, I
[04:20]
B
believe it was TV commercials, but okay, because that's. Most of the examples they give were TV commercials.
[04:26]
A
I feel like TV commercials have definitely lost their edge when you look at it historically and just the amount of classic big campaigns that used to be done. And I don't know if it's because that energy is being siphoned into other channels where you can do more and try more, but I do think that TV has declined in terms of its edge.
[04:51]
B
For sure, you would be correct. No, it has not really gotten better over time. So for this report, they pulled Data on over 120,000 ads across the UK, US, France and Germany. And they had responses for more than 18 million people. They measured emotion using their star rating, which basically tracks facial expressions and self reported feelings while people watch the ads in real time. And the number that jumps out from this report is 48%. That is the average share of people who watch an ad and feel absolutely nothing. They don't feel annoyed, they don't feel interested, just completely blank. And that's essentially unchanged from two years ago. They dug into the actual comments people leave when an ad leaves them. And only about one in five people could put into words why an ad felt like Nothing. The other 80% were just saying things like it was fine, I don't know, it was just meh. Which means if you're only listening to what people say in a focus group, you're missing most of the problem because dull essentially hides below the surface. And then Karen Else and Field, she was a part of this and she brought in like a media point of view. And she looked at over 115,000 real ad views across TV, social, web and gaming, usually using actual eye tracking and attention data. So she found that 80% of ad impressions get zero active attention. So people are scrolling past them, they're technically served, we're paying for them, but nobody's eyes ever really land on them. She estimates that adds up to another $198 billion a year in wasted media. So lots of wasted money.
[06:16]
A
That's a lot of money.
[06:18]
B
So we've got kind of a one, two punch happening to marketers. We've got dull creative and then we've got a lot of creative running in very low attention media. So Rob, if you had to bet, which one of those do you think is the bigger problem for most brands? The ad itself or where it's being shown? Is it the dull ad or is it the media choice?
[06:37]
A
For sure, the creative, I mean bad, you know, placement waste money, but bad creative really wastes the impression. So I'm definitely going with creative.
[06:48]
B
Okay, I like that you took a side. They kind of said. They said both. Okay, yeah, they said you can't really separate them because longer higher attention formats like tv, they give emotion time to build. And their data shows that longer ads are consistently less dull than short ones. But the report is also clear that you can't media buy your way out of a boring idea. So I'd agree with you there. Like if your creative has no story, no music, no character, no joke, you know, more airtime just means More people ignoring it for longer. So they'd agree with you there that you need. It's like first start with the great creative and then let's make sure people are actually seeing it.
[07:23]
A
I'm used to being half wrong.
[07:25]
B
So, okay, so what actually works? Let's talk about their solutions. Here they share five creative ingredients that they call the pillars for treating dull. Those are storytelling, drama, melody, which Rob, I thought sounded familiar to you. Humor and what they call fluid devices, meaning recognizable characters, jingles, taglines. So ads that had those were rated as far less dull and got remembered more often. So for example, ads that scored high on amusement, basically good comedy, consistently beat out flat straightforward ones on their fame and memorability scores. One thing I loved about this finding is you're not saying each ad that you create has to be crazy and insanely attention driving. They're saying if you use your distinctive assets, if you use just basic storytelling, your ad is not going to be as dull. So I thought that was, that was nice to hear. One other thing they looked at is how brands measure their own creative and found that surprise companies that are using proper quantitative emotional testing consistently produce more engaging emotional work than companies that rely only on focus groups, which market architects would love. Because we don't do focus groups. We were huge fans of creative pre testing. They really think if you're not measuring this directly, you can't manage it and dull is going to creep in without anyone noticing it. So what a great reason to do pre testing on your TV commercials.
[08:47]
A
Love that.
[08:48]
B
What should marketers take away? Measure the emotional response to your ads directly instead of just asking people what they think in a focus group. Most people aren't even going to be able to explain why something is dull. Give your creative time to build feeling. Longer formats consistently score less dull. So don't, you know, just be running 5 second, even 15 second cuts. Add in longer formats if you are stuck on short form. Lean hard and fluent devices, a jingle, a mascot, a tagline, because those carry emotional weight. And then benchmark your ads against your specific category, not the market average. We didn't get into this today, but dullness they found really changes by the industry. So that would be good to know if you got to compare your ads against others. Okay, they're robgpt. Think of your media budget like a megaphone. Buying more media just turns up the volume. But if the message you're yelling into the megaphone doesn't mean anything to anyone, all you're doing is shouting nothing at more people. Louder. The cure isn't a bigger megaphone. It's actually having something worth yelling, all right, kind of fun one.
[09:45]
A
It's super fun, super interesting, you know, and I do. I'm just. I'm pondering a little bit more about the channel question. Because dull also equals safe. Right? People often correlate the two. And in television, it's a bigger stage, It's a bigger perceived risk. And so, you know, are people backdooring their way into dull because they're feeling the need to be safe in a platform where they should be doing the opposite? You know, because if you look at YouTube, YouTube has a lower risk profile because you can do quick testing. You can see what worked, what didn't work. So your blast radius is a lot less. I would argue you're seeing some more interesting work, interesting, creative work happening in YouTube as well. I don't know. What do you think?
[10:34]
B
I would agree with that. Or even. I mean, I see way more interesting ads, even on Instagram advertising. I think you're right. That's like. Feels a lot safer to test, like, TV is the big stage, so you're going on there. And, like, that does come with some pressure. And you're right. I bet brands flinch away from certain things. That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor de Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn. And if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing architects.

Summary5 min read

Podcast Summary: The Marketing Architects

Episode: Nerd Alert: The Cure for Dull Advertising

Date: August 6, 2026
Hosts: Alana Jasper & Rob Demars

Episode Overview

This episode of The Marketing Architects takes a research-driven look at why so much advertising is “dull,” the immense revenue wasted on uninspiring ads, and—most importantly—how to cure dullness. Drawing on the latest report from System1, “The Cure for Dull,” hosts Alana Jasper and Rob Demars translate complex marketing research into actionable strategies for more emotionally engaging, effective advertising.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Epidemic of Dull Ads

Dull Advertisements Are Everywhere:
Rob opens by poking fun at a forgettable car commercial he saw:

“I mean, it was 30 seconds of beige. I came to on the couch like I’d been anesthetized by an automobile.” (00:36, Rob)
Research Foundation:
The discussion centers around the new System1 report, “The Cure for Dull,” and its predecessor, “The Extraordinary Cost of Dull.”
- Key Finding from Past Report: Most advertising evokes no emotional response.
Magnitude of the Problem:
In 2023, System1 found that bland advertising led marketers to waste an extra $189 billion/year in media just to achieve what emotional ads do naturally.

"They had people watch cows grazing and found that it was more engaging than most of the ads. Cows are lovely, but still…" (03:07, Alana)

2. Ads People Actually Remember

Personal Reflections:
- Rob recalls a Nike ad that stuck with him since 1997:
  
  "It was a picture of a woman running in the desert and it said, 'there’s still places where radio waves can’t reach you. Nike. Just do it.' …I still feel something when I see that ad." (01:44, Rob)
- Alana cites Budweiser’s “Free Bird” Super Bowl ad as an example that made her emotional. (02:39)

3. The Scope and Science of “Dull”

Massive Data Set:
- Latest System1 study: 120,000 ads, responses from 18 million people across UK, US, France, and Germany. (04:50)
- Emotion measured via real-time facial responses and self-reported feelings.
Staggering Results:
- 48% of viewers felt nothing after watching an average ad—unchanged from previous years.
- Only 1 in 5 could articulate why an ad felt flat; the rest gave vague answers (“meh,” “fine”).
  
  “Which means if you’re only listening to what people say in a focus group, you’re missing most of the problem because dull essentially hides below the surface.” (05:09, Alana)
Attention Research:
Dr. Karen Nelson-Field found 80% of ad impressions get zero active attention—viewers are scrolling past, never engaging. That's another $198 billion in wasted media annually.

4. What’s the Bigger Problem: Creative or Media?

Creative vs. Placement:
Rob’s view:

“For sure, the creative… bad placement wastes money, but bad creative really wastes the impression.” (06:37, Rob)
Conclusion:
Both matter—longer, high-attention formats (like TV) give emotion time to build, but even great media can’t fix a boring concept.

“…if your creative has no story, no music, no character, no joke, more airtime just means more people ignoring it for longer.” (07:05, Alana)

5. Five Pillars to Cure Dull Ads (07:23)

System1’s Five Creative Ingredients:

Storytelling
Drama
Melody
Humor
Fluid Devices (e.g., characters, jingles, taglines)
Evidence:
Ads using these elements rated as far less dull and were better remembered.

“…ads that scored high on amusement, basically good comedy, consistently beat out flat straightforward ones." (07:51, Alana)
Key Point:
Not every ad needs to be outrageous—basic storytelling and use of distinct brand assets already elevate memorability.

6. The Limits of Focus Groups and the Power of Pre-Testing (08:18)

Measurement Matters:
- Brands using quantitative emotional testing consistently produce more engaging creative than those relying on traditional focus groups.
- “If you’re not measuring this directly, you can’t manage it and dull is going to creep in without anyone noticing…” (08:35, Alana)

7. Practical Takeaways for Marketers (08:47)

Measure Emotional Response Directly: Don’t just ask what people think—see how they feel.
Favor Longer Format Creative: 15 or 30 seconds isn't always enough—longer ads build more emotion.
Leverage Fluent Devices: Mascots, jingles, taglines, and recognizable assets increase emotional impact.
Benchmark Against Your Category: Dullness varies greatly between industries; compare within your own.
Metaphor:

“Think of your media budget like a megaphone. Buying more media just turns up the volume. But if the message you’re yelling into the megaphone doesn’t mean anything… all you’re doing is shouting nothing at more people. Louder. The cure isn’t a bigger megaphone. It’s actually having something worth yelling.” (09:26, Alana)

8. Bonus: The Psychology of Playing It Safe (09:44)

The Role of Risk:
- Rob observes that dullness in TV often stems from perceived risk—TV is seen as a “bigger stage.”
- Digital channels (e.g., YouTube, Instagram) feel safer for experimentation due to rapid feedback and lower stakes.
  
  “Dull also equals safe… are people backdooring their way into dull because they feel the need to be safe in a platform where they should do the opposite?” (09:44, Rob)

Most Notable Quotes & Timestamps

“30 seconds of beige. I came to on the couch like I’d been anesthetized by an automobile.”
(00:36, Rob)
“48%—the average share of people who watch an ad and feel absolutely nothing.”
(05:10, Alana)
“80% of ad impressions get zero active attention.…that adds up to another $198 billion a year in wasted media.”
(05:45, Alana)
“Buying more media just turns up the volume. But if the message… doesn’t mean anything… you’re shouting nothing at more people. Louder.”
(09:26, Alana)

Engaging, Research-Backed Summary

The problem of dull advertising is not only widespread, it’s alarmingly persistent. Nearly half of viewers feel nothing for the average ad, leaving billions wasted.
Dullness is often invisible—standard focus groups can’t diagnose it because most people can’t explain indifference.
System1’s new research highlights that both creative risk-taking and engaging, tested storytelling are essential. Uphold the five pillars—storytelling, drama, melody, humor, and fluid devices—to cut through indifference.
Emotional measurement, not merely opinion polling, should guide creative decisions.
The format matters: longer ads give feelings time to develop; frequent, superficial short cuts won’t substitute for substance.
Playing it safe, especially on high-stakes platforms like TV, often leads to the very waste brands are trying to avoid—boldness pays off.

For marketers facing creative stagnation: you don’t need a bigger megaphone, you need something worth shouting.

Loading summary

Transcript30 lines

[00:00]
A
Nerd Alert. Learning is important, right?
[00:02]
B
Yes, exactly. What a bunch of nerds.
[00:05]
A
Nerd alert.
[00:06]
B
Right. Marketing Architects. Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Alana Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects. And I'm joined by my co host, Rob demars, the chief product architect of misfits and machines.
[00:23]
A
Hello, Elena.
[00:24]
B
Hello. We're back with your weekly Nerd Alert. Every week I'll take a deep dive into academic marketing research and translate its complex ideas into simple, understandable language for Rob, and of course, for all of you. Are you ready to nerd out, Rob?
[00:36]
A
Oh, I was just watching a car commercial that was so aggressively forgettable that by the end I actually forgot it was a car commercial. I forgot I owned a car. And I briefly forgot my own name. I mean, it was 30 seconds of beige. I came to on the couch like I'd been anesthetized by an automobile.
[01:00]
B
Sounds pretty dull. Like a very dull advertisement.
[01:03]
A
It was dull.
[01:04]
B
Yeah. I'm sure you're looking for a cure for that, which you're in luck because that's what we're talking about today. We're talking about a report which is called the Cure for Dull. It's from our friends at System One, and it's basically a sequel to the report that made a lot of noise a couple years ago. I'm sure you remember it, Rob. The Extraordinary Cost of Dull was a very popular report from them. So this is exploring the same idea. Most advertising makes people feel absolutely nothing. But this time, instead of just diagnosing the problem they wanted to see, could we also suggest a solution? But before I get into the study, Rob, quick question. What was the last ad you remember feeling like really strongly about? It really captured your attention and emotion.
[01:45]
A
This is a hard question. Cause there's a lot of commercials that certainly have caught my attention, but ones that have, like, really made me feel. Feel something deeply are few. And you know, back when I was in. In college and, you know, liked advertising as a student, you'd actually hang an ad on the wall, right? That's like something you do. You'd actually, like, put it up with a thumbtack on the wall. And I still remember this one, which of course was for Nike because everybody was in the 90s in love with the Nike brand for. But it was a picture of a woman running in the desert and it said, there's still places where radio waves can't reach you. Nike, just do it. And I still Feel that. I still remember that. I mean, it's, it was 1997 when I saw that and I still feel something when I see that ad.
[02:39]
B
Yeah, that's a great one. I was thinking at the super bowl this year when Budweiser did the Free Bird and ad with the, the Clydesdale, like the bald eagle. That definitely like made me teary eyed for some reason.
[02:51]
A
I gotcha.
[02:52]
B
Yeah, but no, it's sometimes hard to think about actually. Like, when's the last time I saw an ad that really made me feel
[02:57]
A
something, like truly made you feel. You know, there's plenty of ads where you laugh or you're feeling something, but like something that really connects in the soul. Those are harder to come by for sure.
[03:07]
B
And we're not saying that a good ad has to be that, but it's definitely hard to think about this paper. It's called the Cure for Dull. It was published this year by System One, as well as some other smart people like Adam Morgan, who's from Eat Big Fish, former guest on the show, and effectiveness researcher Peter field. Attention researcher Dr. Karen Nelson Field, not related to Peter Field, just same last name and creative researcher Orlando Wood and John Evans. So back in 2023, they put out this report, Extraordinary Costa Doll. They looked at over 80,000 ads. They found that brands were collectively wasting an extra $189 billion a year in media. And just to get the same results that emotionally engaging ads got for free. If you remember, they had that really fun thing where they had people watch cows grazing and they found that it was more engaging than most of the ads, which was so sad. It's so funny. I mean, cows are lovely, but still they are. So a few years later they've gone back in and written this. So, Rob, back then they looked at ads, right? They found their recent money ads are really dull. Do you think advertising has gotten more or less dull over time?
[04:16]
A
Did they do it by channel or did they say in this study, I
[04:20]
B
believe it was TV commercials, but okay, because that's. Most of the examples they give were TV commercials.
[04:26]
A
I feel like TV commercials have definitely lost their edge when you look at it historically and just the amount of classic big campaigns that used to be done. And I don't know if it's because that energy is being siphoned into other channels where you can do more and try more, but I do think that TV has declined in terms of its edge.
[04:51]
B
For sure, you would be correct. No, it has not really gotten better over time. So for this report, they pulled Data on over 120,000 ads across the UK, US, France and Germany. And they had responses for more than 18 million people. They measured emotion using their star rating, which basically tracks facial expressions and self reported feelings while people watch the ads in real time. And the number that jumps out from this report is 48%. That is the average share of people who watch an ad and feel absolutely nothing. They don't feel annoyed, they don't feel interested, just completely blank. And that's essentially unchanged from two years ago. They dug into the actual comments people leave when an ad leaves them. And only about one in five people could put into words why an ad felt like Nothing. The other 80% were just saying things like it was fine, I don't know, it was just meh. Which means if you're only listening to what people say in a focus group, you're missing most of the problem because dull essentially hides below the surface. And then Karen Else and Field, she was a part of this and she brought in like a media point of view. And she looked at over 115,000 real ad views across TV, social, web and gaming, usually using actual eye tracking and attention data. So she found that 80% of ad impressions get zero active attention. So people are scrolling past them, they're technically served, we're paying for them, but nobody's eyes ever really land on them. She estimates that adds up to another $198 billion a year in wasted media. So lots of wasted money.
[06:16]
A
That's a lot of money.
[06:18]
B
So we've got kind of a one, two punch happening to marketers. We've got dull creative and then we've got a lot of creative running in very low attention media. So Rob, if you had to bet, which one of those do you think is the bigger problem for most brands? The ad itself or where it's being shown? Is it the dull ad or is it the media choice?
[06:37]
A
For sure, the creative, I mean bad, you know, placement waste money, but bad creative really wastes the impression. So I'm definitely going with creative.
[06:48]
B
Okay, I like that you took a side. They kind of said. They said both. Okay, yeah, they said you can't really separate them because longer higher attention formats like tv, they give emotion time to build. And their data shows that longer ads are consistently less dull than short ones. But the report is also clear that you can't media buy your way out of a boring idea. So I'd agree with you there. Like if your creative has no story, no music, no character, no joke, you know, more airtime just means More people ignoring it for longer. So they'd agree with you there that you need. It's like first start with the great creative and then let's make sure people are actually seeing it.
[07:23]
A
I'm used to being half wrong.
[07:25]
B
So, okay, so what actually works? Let's talk about their solutions. Here they share five creative ingredients that they call the pillars for treating dull. Those are storytelling, drama, melody, which Rob, I thought sounded familiar to you. Humor and what they call fluid devices, meaning recognizable characters, jingles, taglines. So ads that had those were rated as far less dull and got remembered more often. So for example, ads that scored high on amusement, basically good comedy, consistently beat out flat straightforward ones on their fame and memorability scores. One thing I loved about this finding is you're not saying each ad that you create has to be crazy and insanely attention driving. They're saying if you use your distinctive assets, if you use just basic storytelling, your ad is not going to be as dull. So I thought that was, that was nice to hear. One other thing they looked at is how brands measure their own creative and found that surprise companies that are using proper quantitative emotional testing consistently produce more engaging emotional work than companies that rely only on focus groups, which market architects would love. Because we don't do focus groups. We were huge fans of creative pre testing. They really think if you're not measuring this directly, you can't manage it and dull is going to creep in without anyone noticing it. So what a great reason to do pre testing on your TV commercials.
[08:47]
A
Love that.
[08:48]
B
What should marketers take away? Measure the emotional response to your ads directly instead of just asking people what they think in a focus group. Most people aren't even going to be able to explain why something is dull. Give your creative time to build feeling. Longer formats consistently score less dull. So don't, you know, just be running 5 second, even 15 second cuts. Add in longer formats if you are stuck on short form. Lean hard and fluent devices, a jingle, a mascot, a tagline, because those carry emotional weight. And then benchmark your ads against your specific category, not the market average. We didn't get into this today, but dullness they found really changes by the industry. So that would be good to know if you got to compare your ads against others. Okay, they're robgpt. Think of your media budget like a megaphone. Buying more media just turns up the volume. But if the message you're yelling into the megaphone doesn't mean anything to anyone, all you're doing is shouting nothing at more people. Louder. The cure isn't a bigger megaphone. It's actually having something worth yelling, all right, kind of fun one.
[09:45]
A
It's super fun, super interesting, you know, and I do. I'm just. I'm pondering a little bit more about the channel question. Because dull also equals safe. Right? People often correlate the two. And in television, it's a bigger stage, It's a bigger perceived risk. And so, you know, are people backdooring their way into dull because they're feeling the need to be safe in a platform where they should be doing the opposite? You know, because if you look at YouTube, YouTube has a lower risk profile because you can do quick testing. You can see what worked, what didn't work. So your blast radius is a lot less. I would argue you're seeing some more interesting work, interesting, creative work happening in YouTube as well. I don't know. What do you think?
[10:34]
B
I would agree with that. Or even. I mean, I see way more interesting ads, even on Instagram advertising. I think you're right. That's like. Feels a lot safer to test, like, TV is the big stage, so you're going on there. And, like, that does come with some pressure. And you're right. I bet brands flinch away from certain things. That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor de Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn. And if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing architects.