Clay Christensen: Hi. This is Clay Christensen, and I want to welcome you to a podcast series we call The Disruptive Voice. In this podcast, we explore the theories that are featured in our course here at HBS, Building and Sustaining a Successful Enterprise. In each episode, we'll talk to alumni of our course and others who are trying to put these theories to use in their lives and in their organizations. It's great fun to hear from them, and I hope that you find these conversations inspiring and useful. If you have any idea about a topic or a speaker that you'd like to hear more about or if you'd like to comment on our work, please reach out to us here at the school.

Derek van Bever: Hi. I'm Derek van Bever, and you're listening to The Disruptive Voice. A new concern has moved to the center of the risk management screen in companies of all sizes, and that is the issue of the erosion of trust in business. Here at HBS, our dean, Nitin Nohria, wrote an op ed in the FT earlier this year in which he dedicated the school to producing business leaders who deserve society's trust.

Derek van Bever: During this past reunion season, I did a live poll in our new gathering space, Klarman Hall, asking several hundred members of the class of 2018 whether they shared Dean Nohria's concern that this was a problem the school needed to address. I think even we were surprised a whopping 72% of the class agreed strongly that HBS needed to move here.

Derek van Bever: So trust and building trust is an issue on which the business community globally is widely viewed as playing defense. But what if the opposite were true? What if the erosion of trust in business created opportunities for individual businesses to bake trust into their business models?

Derek van Bever: This is the question that Nate Redmond and his colleagues at the VC firm Alpha Edison are working on, and we are pleased that he and his colleague, Britt Danneman, could join us by phone today from their offices in Los Angeles.

Derek van Bever: Earlier this year, Clay asked us at the forum to study the business models of service businesses that were building their models around taking on customer risk. We think we see lots of parallels between the work that Nate and his team are doing on trust and that we are doing on risk shifting, but it's early days on all of this. So we thought it was an appropriate time to get all of you into this conversation pretty early in its development.

Derek van Bever: Listeners to the podcast will already be familiar with Nate. Nate's a 2001 graduate of the school, and he has worked closely with Clay since graduation to apply the theories of our course to guide his firm's investment decisions. In a podcast last year, Curtis Arledge and Nate discussed how Alpha Edison applies the theories of BSSE to how they organize the firm and how they organize their search for opportunities. Nate is joined today by his colleague, Britt Danneman, a 2016 graduate of HBS and a member of the investing and research team at Alpha Edison. Welcome to you both.

Nate Redmond: Thank you very much, Derek.

Britt Danneman: It's good to be here.

Derek van Bever: Thanks. Let's just launch in and see how this goes. Nate, I will start with you. What's your view? Why do you think this issue of trust is coming around to the fore these days?

Nate Redmond: So, as investors, we are very interested in change and, in particular, the change in change, if you will, so the gradiance. One of the things that we observed was the increasing rate at which public companies and private companies were talking about trust. While they didn't always use the language or the specific verbiage of trust, that came out as an increasingly recurring theme. We took that input and really began to study this and try to understand how that relates to a growing set of vulnerabilities across industries and across time.

Nate Redmond: There was some work that a professor, Rachel Botsman, had done which she published in a book called Who Can You Trust? One of the things that she had pointed out was consistent with our observations, which were that if you look at how trust was distributed, it's really changed over the course of the last 50 years. So if you think back to coming out of, in this country, the World War II timeframe, so much of the trust that individuals developed with businesses were built around local or personal relationships. This is true in the context of retail. It was true in the context of banking. That really began to shift as companies began to take shape, and industries consolidated, and they began to build scale.

Nate Redmond: So as you think about the growth over the course of the last 40 or 50 years, increasingly as an individual, I didn't buy my car from Bill but really from the GM dealer. Or I didn't go in and buy my hammer from Joe at Ace Hardware. I went to Home Depot. Or similarly, I wasn't going in and really trusting and building the relationship with an individual banker, but instead with Citibank. The growth of many of these institutions were really a by-product of the availability of mass channels and ultimately the economies of scale that came with them.

Nate Redmond: What we began to see is that actually over the course of this timeframe, these companies grew and were able to take advantage of economies of scale, and ultimately those economies of scale were enabled by trust. During that time, however, we actually saw trust beginning to erode in institutions. So there have been some good studies that have been done recently looking at the trust in institutions and how they have eroded roughly 50%.

Nate Redmond: This spans across government, religion, medicine, education, banks and other businesses. Interestingly, it really accelerated over the last few years as technology has increasingly enabled a level of transparency that never previously existed.

Nate Redmond: So we're beginning to see a shift again in trust from institutions and away to a much more distributive sense, and that really sets up a very different set of opportunities as you look ahead over the coming decade and decades, where this redistribution of trust opens up an opportunity for a shift from economies of scale to one that's much more tied to economies of scope. This really, I think, becomes a foundation for thinking about trust as a core asset.

Derek van Bever: That's interesting. So I guess if I am hearing you right, there was an intimacy that existed, going back half a century, an intimacy that characterized our interactions with businesses that we've lost as businesses have scaled and industries have consolidated and our interactions have become much more impersonal. If I'm a business person listening to this podcast, can you just double back and tell me. So why do I care about that? Why is trust important?

Nate Redmond: So one of the things that we heard from CEOs, both public and private, was an increasing turn and focus on trust being really at the core of everything they did. This spanned across industries. So if they're saying that, the question we begin wrestling with is then, well, why is that, and what are the causal links?

Nate Redmond: Well, if you have someone like Fred Smith talking about trust being so critical to the ecosystem that they have built and the value that they have delivered, that indeed the value of Federal Express must capture trust in some level of either the underlying financial performance and/or the multiples put on that. Therefore, trust really becomes the foundation of a core asset.

Nate Redmond: So as we began to unpack this, you start to see trust really impacting these causal drivers of performance. So, for example, one of the real powers of trust is that it enables behavior change. For listeners here and those who are familiar with Clay's work, that opportunity to help people do things that they otherwise want to get done but are unable to do in the current set of offerings of products or services, if you enable them to change that behavior along the lines of accomplishing that job, it really allows you to go in and unlock new markets. So, for example, today we stay in other people's houses and get into the back of strangers' cars.

Derek van Bever: Good point, yeah.

Nate Redmond: When we think back 10 years ago and you would go around and speak to your friends and family, "Is this something that you would be willing to do?" I expect that almost all of them would look at you quizzically and wonder, "What exactly are you talking about?"

Derek van Bever: Absolutely right.

Nate Redmond: So we were able to really learn from watching the development of these companies, back from the earliest days, right? When you sit down and you look at a company like Airbnb in the context of a very large industry of hospitality, and yet the service that they were providing 10 years ago really appealed to a very small set of customers. In some ways, we can think about those people who were really just interested and st willing to stay in hostels. Yet one of the core innovations that they were able to do is to bring trust into this ecosystem.

Nate Redmond: An important component here is that for decades I and many other people were raised with this notion that a stranger is dangerous. It was reinforced as a kid in many different elements and aspects, and it kind of anchored into our psyche. It turns out, however, as trust is shifting from institutions into a distributive basis, that if you can design an ecosystem to capture feedback from other users in the context of Airbnb hosts and guests and accurately reflect and rate those individuals, then you have this element of the creation of trust that allows a guest, let's say, to go stay in the home of someone who they've never bet or allows a host to actually go in and open their home out up to a guest who they've never met. Why? Because the ratings and recommendations, not just very open-ended, not paid, but clean, clear, legitimate from other people who you've otherwise never met, become the basis for literally establishing that trust.

Nate Redmond: Again, so we've seen that brought into these marketplace models, and it's a source of innovation, not just in smoothing out the marketplace but fundamentally unlocking new behavior. That's one example of how we start to see the opportunity to ultimately unlock these new markets.

Nate Redmond: We also see this in financial services, where because you trust the institution that you're interacting with, there are actually new behaviors where people who have never previously had an investment account or who managed their expenses differently are engaging with their trusted partner to begin to express new behaviors. Ultimately, you start to see new markets emerge, both in terms of new consumers as well as fundamentally new communications.

Nate Redmond: So that's a very powerful kind of core driver of performance. Taking that thread forward, we have this opportunity to build relationships with customers that are very deep, which allows you to extend out into new products and new areas and ultimately cross traditional industry boundaries. Therefore, you really begin to see this sense of economies of scope.

Nate Redmond: Secondly, they're very durable relationships, meaning that you have very high retention of those customers. Third, you have the opportunity to grow in a much lower-cost way by engaging with that customer in the advocacy that they were able to and willing to share, which really reinforces the community and ultimately deepens the network effects.

Nate Redmond: As I mentioned, this really becomes the basis of competitive advantage, which translates to higher revenue cashflow multiples as a certainty of future cashflows increase.

Derek van Bever: That's interesting. So you can look at trust as being a causal driver behind a business's ability to expand its scope, to retain its customers at a superior level, to grow through, say, word-of-mouth marketing or referral, all of these things that kind of ease the performance improvement of a business going forward. Do you have examples? Can you give us some examples of businesses that, say, perhaps you and Britt have seen as you've scanned the universe that have this quality baked into their models?

Britt Danneman: For sure. One of our favorites, and I think there's a lot of dimensions that have a thing about trust, is Southwest Airlines. So Southwest competes in an industry where there's actually very little trust. Very few people trust airlines in a particularly deep way. We could come back to sort of the layers of trust here, but one of the things that struck us about Southwest is often people think of Southwest as the cheapest airline. The way that we think about it and their model is really that they're the most aligned airline with customers.

Britt Danneman: So one of the layers that we have found to be most predictable and most enlightening on how customers think about trust is alignment with business model. So Southwest has a model that is a bit different from other airlines in that if you think, for example, about they treat customers in moments when they are most vulnerable, so, for example, you need to change your flight, your bag is overweight, they actually will either reduce or not have fees in those instances.

Britt Danneman: So if you are in a moment where your meeting is running over and you need to change your flight, there will not be a fee for Southwest to do it. Whereas, another airline would say, tough luck, it's $200. So what they have done is actually invert the model, and I think this goes to some of the points you were making earlier around the focus of the forum in that they've actually put them in a place to take some economic risk around their customers. So they're saying, "We will allow you to do this without taking a fee because it's the right thing to do," and it's how they really build these deep relationships with their customers.

Derek van Bever: So that's an interesting example, Britt, in an industry that's not known for, I suppose, customer sensibility particularly. Southwest is able to differentiate through that more, as you said, kind of empathetic sense of when customers are vulnerable, that's when we step forward. Are there industries or companies that represent a counter-example, that tend to be sort of low trust?

Britt Danneman: So we started to talk about banking earlier. That's an industry where we have found there is broadly very low trust, especially with regard to younger generations. So 90% of millennials don't trust their bank, and four of the 10 least-trusted brands by millennials are these top banks. A lot of it, we think, has to do with things like fees and how they treat their customers and really how they take on and create value for customers in ways that are, at this point, relatively commoditized.

Britt Danneman: So banking is an industry built on the truest commodity, which is money. So how they treat their customers and the types of relationships they end up building ends up being the basis for competition. So we talk about how trust is an asset, and really what we mean by that is it's a vector on which companies can choose to compete. So very few banking companies at this point have chosen to compete around trust, and so that's a sector we're paying a lot of attention to.

Nate Redmond: Which is ironic given that the symbol of a bank vault is often held up as being emblematic of trust and of high trust and almost as a reason to trust that bank. Obviously, that component that was a differentiator 100 years ago has very much become commoditized. The nature of that relationship, as Britt pointed out, from our work, the fissures really began to form decades ago and began to widen at a much faster pace coming through the financial crisis. As we've seen a set of interests and values brought forward by this next generation are really looking for different things than how the banks have built their brands, which really creates a level of vulnerability in that industry and an opening for new companies to come in and really establish a level of trust that becomes a nearly unassailable competitive advantage.

Derek van Bever: Is anyone doing that, Nate? Trying to take advantage of this general environment of low trust to cut exactly the opposite way and to build a business model in FS around trust?

Nate Redmond: So we have a number of examples of companies that we've seen, including some that we have invested in and are helping to build. In the context of financial services, there is a company called Aspiration that has really found a way of establishing a level of intimacy with their customers and trust-based relationship that is very different than we've seen from any other of the neobanks or other emerging challenger banks. The things that make it different, the indicators again, are things that we had mentioned previously, extremely low churn from their customers, a differentiated level of engagement, a willingness to move from one product to the other that are at a level that is a multiple of the rest of the industry, and this net promoter score, which is a measure of how likely individuals are to refer, being at or above Apple and Amazon but more importantly how they engage and ultimately share across that community.

Nate Redmond: These are all really important determinants of that relationship. The importance of that relationship is that not only can you establish a sense of trust through kind of core financial service products, but if you've built that, you can take that across into other areas. If you think about the types of decisions that we make in our lives, where they are highly-considered decisions, including where you're likely to put your money, entrust your money, and highly-considered but also have quite a bit of economics associated with those. Those come at meaningful moments in our lives, from when we move to ultimately when we have life changes, children, marriage, et cetera.

Derek van Bever: A question that occurred to me as we were preparing for this podcast, and it's a little bit out of left field, but do businesses by-and-large deserve customer trust? Is the way that we make decisions, Britt mentioned earlier the tendency of airlines to take advantage of our moments of vulnerability, is that the exception or the rule? Generally, does business decision-making result in kind of an us versus them, us versus the customer, trade-off and the customers are just spotting it more and more these days? What's happening with that?

Britt Danneman: So I think before we answer that question, it's probably good to get a definition of trust out there that we can work with. One of our favorites is really created by a bunch of behavioral researchers. They break down trust into three parts. The first is ability. The second is integrity, and the third is benevolence. Now, I'll go back and describe sort of what each of them are.

Britt Danneman: So ability means do companies do what they say they are going to do? Will you get your package on time? Will your money be safe in its vault? Integrity is this idea that do companies make the right business decisions? Benevolence is the one that's a bit harder and I think really where we should go with this conversation and I think where you're going with the question.

Britt Danneman: Benevolence is this idea that new companies do the right thing on behalf of customers, which goes back to this idea of vulnerability. So customers are often, quote, the little guy in this situation. They are an individual or a small company or maybe even a big company, but someone who doesn't have really negotiating power in the way that would create a sense of equal. So there's vulnerability here, and the level of vulnerability that consumers or customers are required to take with a company can change, depending on what the transaction is and who the company is.

Britt Danneman: So there are many instances where there's very little vulnerability required in the transaction. You buy lunch. You walk into a retail store and buy a new shirt. On the other hand, there are instances that require a lot of vulnerability, where you are relying on someone or a company to make a decision on your behalf which requires a level of trust that is much deeper.

Britt Danneman: So to your question around do companies deserve our trust, I think the follow-up question is what kind of trust and what exactly are you trusting these companies to do. I may trust Amazon to deliver my package on time, but I may not trust them with my healthcare information though somebody else might. So I think the way that we have thought about trust in that way is understanding the levels of trust that are required and whether companies really are able to effectively deliver on this benevolence factor.

Derek van Bever: That is very helpful framing. So the way I think about benevolence, I guess a way of rephrasing that is, do the companies that I interact with seem to have my best interests at heart.

Britt Danneman: Yeah, I think that's right, and a sense of empathy.

Derek van Bever: I'm curious, Britt, as somebody who studies this, as you think about the businesses with which you interact on a day-to-day basis, in general, are you impressed by the extent to which they have your interests at heart, or do you walk around going, "Ah, I can't believe how much of an us versus them, win-lose kind of game this is to get through life interacting with the businesses that present themselves in my day-to-day?"

Britt Danneman: That's a good question. I'm an optimist, so I probably am more trusting than I should be. But the way that maybe listeners will appreciate the answer to this question is we've been doing our own informal study on which businesses customers trust, and I have learned a lot in that process. So we've taken a lot of data-driven ways to look at trust, and this one is a little softer, but I think it's an interesting anecdote to understand.

Britt Danneman: So we've asked people along the way as we've been studying trust over the last few years or so here, we ask people pretty frequently which companies they trust. It's funny. It's a pretty open-ended question and without a lot of context. So usually when we ask that question, people are pretty confused. There's often a long pause. Sometimes there's a follow-up question, but everyone defines their own trust and how much vulnerability they are willing to share slightly differently.

Britt Danneman: So there are companies that tend to come up more often than others, but really what we find most interesting is not actually the names they come back with but kind of how they think through the question and how difficult it has become for customers to understand exactly what trust means.

Nate Redmond: The other thing that's increasingly clear is the level of the disillusionment that people feel and disappointment that they feel with companies that they had previously ascribed to having a high degree of trust. Some of the violations that we've even seen here over the course of the last couple of years from Facebook and even the understanding of the trade that people have made with Google. Everyone realized that as a trade for the free utility of search, that they were sharing data. Most did not realize the extent to which they were sharing data and how that data was ultimately being used and that it's less necessarily about privacy per se. People are willing to make certain trades. It's really about the transparency around that and ultimately the control that you have.

Nate Redmond: This is one of the reasons why trust is really coming to the forefront now is because of the level of transparency that people have, and we feel as though we're still in the very early part of this curve.

Derek van Bever: The term that you used in earlier conversation that we had, you talked about trust violations, and Facebook is right up there whenever you run your finger down a league table of well-regarded companies, a company that is on the one hand as successful as Facebook has been is often buried very far down in those league tables. If you were Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg, can you spot the impact of trust violations on the enterprise value of Facebook?

Derek van Bever: Yeah, this is a project that we initiated last year, and it really was born of the question of how much is trust worth. It's very hard actually to build up, in the context of the enterprise value or market capital of the company, how much of that revolves around trust. But one of the things you can observe is that when trust is violated, what is the reaction from the investors. Customers, of course, and ultimately how the investors interpret that and attribute how much of the value in a company is attributed to trust.

Nate Redmond: So it's interesting actually. You can see this in different violations, by the way, which we organized in the context of different circumstances, which obviously you can see across many different industries. In looking at hundreds of companies, you could see in some instances when a trust violation occurred, what was their response of the stock. How quickly did it recover? To what extent did it recover? Versus others where there was a trust violation and, in fact, there was almost no reaction, suggesting that there was very little trust left embedded in the value of that enterprise.

Britt Danneman: So one of the things we found with Facebook in particular, we studied instances where there were pretty clear trust violations. For example, when the news came out that they may be helping companies from other countries put political ads on the platform, when the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. You can see very clearly, if you look at charts of enterprise value, when that happened.

Britt Danneman: The other thing that we found as we studied what happens after the trust violation was how quickly, if at all, the price and the valuation of the company returns to where it was before. In Facebook, it actually recovered pretty quickly, which shows that trust is not necessarily a core asset of their business, or at least investors don't think it is.

Britt Danneman: We studied this across various companies and various trust violations, and there were two things that were particularly interesting. One, this idea that, and it sort of ties to our conversation about Southwest earlier, but the companies that have trust baked into their business model were affected differently than the companies who didn't. So companies like Facebook, who don't necessarily have trust, actually the valuation recovered fairly quickly, which was not true in instances where trust was really important.

Britt Danneman: The second thing that we share is that you can learn a lot based on how historical responses have recovered, what the shape of that curve will look like based on the violation itself. So you can learn from these other companies that if, for example, you can identify an individual person, let's say, that has had their trust violated, it's often a deeper level of violation.

Britt DannemanSo, for example, United Airlines, when that passenger was pulled off the plane. People know what he looks like and can identify a single person. Equifax, for example, is the opposite case. We all know that hundreds of thousands of people had their trust violated and that their data was shared, but there isn't a face to go with that. So understanding who the person who has been violated is actually affects the way public markets perceive that.

Derek van Bever: Interesting. I mentioned at the beginning of the pod, Clay is interested in this topic in a very particular way. We've been talking about building risk shifting from consumer to provider into business models. He's been intrigued by some patterns that he's seen in, for example, online education, the academic success coaches that Southern New Hampshire and other online leaders have deployed to really help the lifelong learners to get back into school, to stay with it, to graduate, so actually taking on the risk of student performance. Or the population health risk management models that are emerging in value-based healthcare. At-risk billing and consulting, I suppose is a variant of that. So this issue of taking on risk, is that also a way of, I don't know, demonstrating or building trust? Are these two things related to each other?

Nate Redmond: So we believe it is, and here's how. The notion of risk shifting, meaning that you as a provider of a good or service is really taking on a portion of the risk that is otherwise traditionally held by the customer is really a sense of vulnerability. One of the ways in which each of us can build trust with another individual is by being vulnerable, by sharing things that you're opening yourself up to a level of exposure, perhaps criticism.

Nate Redmond: In the case of companies, there's the idea of actually helping to design the product and ultimately that through determining the pricing and the willingness to pay is one method of being vulnerable. So rather than saying, "If you like my product, you must pay $10," there are various methods of saying, "Well, pay what you think it's worth."

Nate Redmond: This concept is not a new one, as with most. As you mentioned, we've seen it across healthcare, education, content. We saw even artists, vocal artists, et cetera, who have taken this model and tested it in various ways over the last decade. We've also seen it in banking. Aspiration has taken the notion of what they call "pay what is fair" to their customers, and they are doing a form of at-risk billing. Rather than charging a set fee based on the balance of your checking account or if and when you overdraft, they instead are saying, "We are going to over-deliver on the service we're providing. We're so confident of that that we're giving you the opportunity to pay nothing at all or choose the level that you think is most fair."

Derek van Bever: Super interesting, and I have never heard of a bank doing that before. That's cool.

Britt Danneman: The other thing we could add there is this idea of risk shifting is something that we started calling economic vulnerability. So in taking on that risk, the companies end up opening themselves up to these situations. It's a level of trust that is often really differentiated in industries where that hasn't happened before.

Britt Danneman: One of the things we are continuing to study is that will happen in various industries, and then our next question is what's next. What's the next level on which companies will compete and earn consumers' trust? We see economic vulnerability as a platform on which to start building and creating continued differentiation.

Derek van Bever: Interesting. I've got two questions left. One of them kind of from the perspective of our listeners and then one to see how we can help you. First, for our listeners, if I'm someone listening to this podcast and I'm intrigued and I'm like, "Oh, gosh, do my customers trust me? I haven't really asked that question. What's it worth to me to have trust?" What could someone who is intrigued by this topic do to explore it further in their own business?

Britt Danneman: So there are a couple of resources that we would point to to really continue to understand it. Then after that, we can talk about some tactics that we've used to understand measures of trust within companies. So in terms of resources, Nate mentioned earlier this professor Rachel Botsman. Her book is terrific and talks about different resources and different ideas to really understand not only the vocabulary but also tactics that have worked for others in the past.

Britt Danneman: The other is the Edelman Trust Barometer, which comes out every year, which talks about really what we think is most interesting is the role of trust over time. So one of the things they found this last year in 2019 was the role of employers and how increasingly employees are really trusting employers more than any other institution. So as a CEO of a business, so understanding how your employees trust you, too, I think is a really, really interesting first indicator.

Britt Danneman: In terms of measures that we have looked at to understand if there is inherent trust at companies from the investor side, I'll just share a few here. Nate touched on a few of them earlier but to be specific, this idea of turn, understanding if customers stay is a big one and how you perform relative to the rest of the industry.

Britt Danneman: The second is, is there cross-selling? Can you convince customers that you're good at selling one product but more interestingly do they trust you to buy something slightly different, a slight extenuation of your brand?

Britt Danneman: A third that we think is really interesting is customer acquisition costs. Really what we mean there is the difference between paid versus organic. If you have a brand that has a lot of organic traffic and organic customers, often that means you have pretty good word-of-mouth and customers trust you enough to tell their friends, which is a big deal.

Derek van Bever: So that's interesting. So I can actually, if I'm CEO or on the management team of a company, I can actually look in the numbers to try to understand from acquisition to persistence to simply our ability to spread from category to category, do we have what back in the day Dr. Chandler characterized to me as permission to grow from our customers. That's cool. I like that a lot.

Britt Danneman: Yeah. I think the other thing to think about there is know individually none of these are direct signals, but it's how they all fit together that is how we look at it and how it's been really interesting to study.

Derek van Bever: I want to thank you both for this conversation today. I have learned so much from you on this, and I hope to learn so much more from you and our listeners in coming weeks and months. But at a very fundamental level, I'm really intrigued by the way Dean Nohria has framed this challenge as, how do we build leaders who deserve society's trust? You all are taking it to a level deeper and saying, "How do we build businesses that deserve trust?" Not just how do we install leaders over a system that exploits vulnerabilities. How do we build an economy that effectively deserves the trust of those who support it? I find that such an optimistic vision. It's the kind of thing that Clay loves and that we so appreciate you all bringing to us.

Derek van Bever: To our listeners today, something that we've said several times across today's recording, this is very early days for us. These questions are not settled science, and we are super interested in hearing from you. How do you define trust? How do you measure it in your business? How do you build or rebuild trust with your customers? How much is trust worth to you? Then a question to bring to your next management committee meeting, do our customers trust us and should they? I think you couldn't spend too much time talking about that question and the opportunities and challenges that it raises.

Derek van Bever: So we will look forward to hearing from you and maybe coming back on a future podcast and sharing some of what we've learned. But as for today, Nate and Britt, thank you very much for this intriguing conversation, and we will look forward to building on this work in time to come. Thank you.

Nate Redmond: Thank you very much.

Britt Danneman: Thank you.

Clay Christensen: Thank you for listening to us at Disruptive Voice. If you like our show and want to learn more, please visit us at our website or leave us a review on iTunes. Until next time, good luck, everybody.