Aleks Bass Ep 2
===

Aleks: [00:00:00] if something's gonna fail, I wanna know it's gonna fail now.

I don't wanna know. It's gonna fail after I've launched it, 

de-risk as much of it as you can, because if you're honest, you can't handle all of them at the same time, at the same level of quality. 

Jeff: Welcome to Launch Pod, the show from Log Rocket, where we sit down with top product and digital leaders. Today we're getting into part two of our master's class in user research and product strategy from Alex Bass, CPO at Typeform. In this episode, Alex talks about how they successfully launched Typeform for growth in only six months, which quickly became Typeform fastest growing product ever, how she restructured the entire Typeform product development lifecycle. Adding continuous usability testing as a crucial part of that process and how you can cultivate strong relationships with both r and d and go to market to drive similar results.

So here's part two of our conversation with Alex Bass.

So now you've gone through this, hopefully fairly rapid, it sounds like exercise that type four manager took to understand personas.

What are the jobs to be done? What are the overlaps? , what do these people actually want? At a very [00:01:00] nuanced level, how good does it have to be for them? Are there some that can need it? 25% good, some need it, 80% good. And then this idea of distilling out feature constellations and where can we go and build?

And maybe it's fair to put it, like, how do I spend the least amount of time building the most value for users so they'll pay more money,

Aleks: isn't that just the best articulation of the product leadership 

Jeff: That's the goal, right? Like, how do I spend less time generating features that will people pay more money for? There I just defined product for everyone. We're making huge strides here today. So this is all well and good research is wonderful, but this is the point where sometimes some organizations fall down.

Now you need to go and you as a product leader, you need to take all this wonderful knowledge and that Lee and the teams help you generate. And you need to actually go and work with product operations teams and engineering teams. Go to market teams to build it and sell and get out into the market, distribute it, and sell it.

So maybe we start with. There was a semi recent launch [00:02:00] of, I guess one of the first outcomes of this research that has hit the market, and it has done really well from what I understand. So maybe let's start from the end and work backwards a little bit. And so we're here and you've launched Typeform for Growth, and it came out of this let's maybe start there.

Aleks: Yeah, let's do it. So Typeform for growth was interesting 'cause yes, we did this research and 45 days start to finish.

Jeff: I was expecting like six months. That's ridiculous. Wow, you guys, well done.

Aleks: thank you. It was it was a labor of love, but we got there in the end. So I think part of it is you get the insights together and then the other part of it is then you socialize them

Jeff: And then it starts to get exciting though. And like then you start to see the, you're like, you just can't stop. So I get it, but wow.

Aleks: 45 days to get the insights. Six months to build the core capabilities that we had to find that would ultimately make up Typeform for growth. And Typeform for Growth was essentially our new product launch which is a premium package of [00:03:00] Typeform, whose purpose is to help, all of our customers who needed video, they needed AI capabilities, they needed reporting and analytics.

They needed some other capabilities beyond what is typically available within Typeform core to accomplish things that would help them grow. Whether it's, the primary use case we targeted with lead was lead acquisition. But people use it for other things, right? Like they use it for talent acquisition, for community engagement, et cetera.

So there's lots of little sub use cases that people use Typeform for growth for. And it was an interesting project, right? Because it come in and there's not this unified strategy across the board. We ha we do the research, we then do the work to get folks aligned. We get things in motion in terms of what we're gonna build to deliver on this.

And we have to partner with go to market on the launch moment, right? Because all of our successes is commingled, right? Marketing can't be successful without. Product innovation can't be successful without marketing. So it's like these two teams need to [00:04:00] collaborate together in order to see the output and the fruits of our labor come to fruition.

And Typeform for Growth is our fastest growing product at Typeform today, which is really exciting. All made possible through crazy collaboration across the teams. And we really, there was resistance, right? So I don't think that any of these. Things that we're talking about today, Jeff are easy.

I wouldn't look at the last year and a half and describe it as easy right there. It's hard. It's hard in terms of the work that you're doing. It's hard in terms of the relationships you're having to build and collaborate with. It's hard maintaining the conviction in the face of differing points of view, of differences happening in the market.

You know what I mean? There's always gonna be some level of friction across anything that's worth pursuing. But we ended up getting there. And so one of the things that I would say really differentiate the way that Typeform does product development and how we were able to bring this to life that maybe.

I'm sure a lot of other, product folks know these [00:05:00] tools and use these tools. But I think Typeform uses them a little bit differently than average. So when I came in, there was no product development lifecycle process, and so we're talking teams were shaping things right before the cycle started, the cycle of development started.

They would build them, they would release them, they would go on something else, shape and build that thing. And so there wasn't this like cohesive strategy around we need to do this, step A, step B, step C, and by the end of step C. So a customer can do X, right? It was a lot of disparate investments that were coming from customer feedback, customer needs, but they weren't oriented towards a singular unified objective.

So I would say that's the first thing that this research plus product development life cycle was able to unlock for us. The second thing is that we were able to start looking ahead intentionally, right? So we could start to, to make time for those conversations across product design, engineering, and even our cross-functional partners.

It's what do we need to do in order [00:06:00] to be able to unlock this opportunity in order to be able to serve these types of customers in order to be able to do this use case? And I think that had not been part of kind of core conversations at Typeform, at least when I joined. There was probably some stage at which it was there, but it had faltered.

Probably through the transitions of leadership across Typeform history as well. So that was one piece that really helped us. And in the product development lifecycle, there's no product development lifecycle I've ever seen across any organization is the same, right? Different product design. Ops folks bring their points of view to how that process should evolve.

And I fully believe that's exactly how they should do it. There's. Probably best practices you could leverage, but you really need to understand where your organization is, how much process they're willing to tolerate at that particular point in time, how much process they actually need.

Because certain teams have really good, really well honed skills that maybe you don't need to triple [00:07:00] check, double check and document the heck out of right, versus others where sometimes there's these gaps that you need to use process in order to be able to improve holistically and standardize across the team what is being delivered.

And so Typeform strength, I would say. Design, but the challenges is that there wasn't a ton of consistency and reviews across the board. And so there were things that would pop up that would be different in the analysis space and they were in the creator space across the product. And as soon as we started to put in place key ceremonies that would allow us to look at the things that were coming up for shipment and review them as a group together and find inconsistencies and find issues and challenges before we shipped, the better off our shipment processes were and the more effective we were.

The other thing that we ended up doing is standardizing usability testing. And so I would say from when I started to right now, we leverage usability testing tenfold more than we did [00:08:00] before. We put customers in front of these designs. We have these conversations like we were talking about earlier. Is this meeting your needs?

What do you expect this button to do? How would you imagine that this experience would unfold? Next, here's what we were thinking. What is your feedback? Pros and cons, et cetera. And I think what that does is it helps illustrate where there's those gaps before you go to market. Because to me, I think what has happened as an industry in product development as a whole is we have with the proliferation of these.

User data tools where you can see the clicks and you can see where people are going, where they're getting stuck, et cetera through, tools like Amplitude, et cetera. We have, I think, forgotten the art of being able to really talk to somebody about their user experience and understand the whys behind it.

And like you said, I think the click-through data is only gonna give us small percentages of information. The context we get from having real [00:09:00] conversations with humans improves our ability to solve their problems tenfold. And that's one thing that I feel like has maybe gone sideways in the industry.

And I am such a huge fan of user testing of design product management, collaborating with customers and with research to get a sense for is this meeting minimum requirements of usability? Where are the traps? Where can we improve, et cetera. It's been a game changer for us.

Jeff: I love the kind of concepts there of, we have findings that come out, and this is based on, really deep research and understanding what do people need, who are they, what are they trying to do, but how advanced do these things need to be? Even. But then pairing it on the, okay, now let's make it happen.

And there is step one, you start to build it, but let's put in place the ceremonies so that we can ensure that like what you're building matches what we found. And then the checks to be able to make sure as is being built. And once it's built does this do the thing that we thought? 'cause I think that's one area where people [00:10:00] fall down so fast and don't even realize it is, it's a little bit of maybe , the game of telephone.

Maybe it's a little bit of lost in translation. But so many times I feel like you run to this thing where you know what you need to do. Someone on the other side who's actually gonna make it, knows it. And then what comes out is maybe 80% on the mark, 85%. But that last 15% can really often be the difference between exponential success and like I.

Yeah, you did fine. It was okay. But then also then you're going the extra step of let's bring in users, let's validate that. We went the whole thing, we did the research, we talked to people, we brought forward engineering and product ops to get it done. They're building it. We made sure it matches the thesis from back here.

Now let's bring that same kind of person around to the front. Does this do the thing we thought were we right? Does this unlock the value? I love it. It's so complete, and this is one of those things that you're saying it, and I'm listening to it going, isn't this just how everyone does it?

Like, why would you do it any other way? But I also know that's just not true. And it's not that easy. It's just, it's one of those things that is so [00:11:00] smart that when you hear it, you're like, yeah, that's obvious. But it's not until someone says it.

Aleks: Totally agree. And I think it's interesting because experimentation, I think, has encroached on user testing a little bit in the sense that people assume that they can get all of their questions answered through experimentation and it's just not true. I have seen so many teams leverage experimentation, make incorrect assumptions about what they actually learned from those things, because you don't have that why in the room from the consumer angle, and my whole perspective, and I've said this to, to my team several times, which is if something's gonna fail, I wanna know it's gonna fail now.

I don't wanna know. It's gonna fail after I've launched it, right? To me, the art of product development and agility, right? Because we've talked about agility in the industry for technology teams start moving from waterfall to agile approaches of development, et cetera. But you can pull that agility up into product development as well.

De-risk as much of it as you [00:12:00] can, right? So use research tools to help you prioritize your problem spaces, because if you're honest, you can't handle all of them at the same time, at the same level of quality. And then every incremental step you make forward towards having a clear concept or clean feature experience that you want somebody to get value from.

Bring customers in, have those conversations, validate it so that when you do your experiment, you're setting yourself up for success as much as you possibly can. And then the experiment can actually tell you what the experiment is intending to tell you, which is like how much this is actually generating engagement and other elements, right?

And not necessarily trying to help you understand why it's not. Hitting the mark of what customers were trying to accomplish.

Jeff: I always tell my team the. One of the goals we have is I want to find as fast as possible with as little work as possible, what doesn't work so we can get rid of it and focus on the things that do work. But Right, what you describe is you can [00:13:00] use a lot of research and a lot of analytics tools and other things to understand and to get closer to what your hypothesis is.

Why do we think that is? What should we be investigating? But the last tip has to be, does this help people? As product, we are here to solve problems for users and to get our company paid for it. And if you don't solve the problem, it does not matter what you ship or how fast you ship or how good you ship, and how well designed it is if it doesn't solve the problem.

But then also, did you design it in a way the user can use it? You might solve the problem, but it's not designed well and the user can't do it. And. Then you didn't solve it actually. There's one thing I also wanna touch on here is we went through all this bit of working with the user, but was there an element too of what does the set on the market look like?

Like competitive analysis. How is this solved currently? And do people already have these things solved or we kinda entering, greenfield or how good do we have to be better than the market kind of thing?

Aleks: Absolutely. And I think competitive intel is interesting because oftentimes competitive intel is one of the most polarizing things you'll hear in an [00:14:00] organization. 'cause it's almost weaponized the way that most people do competitive intel. And it, you selectively surface the things that you want the teams to be working on to, to push them in a direction.

It's so and so has this and we have to go build it too, right? Because we need to be competitive. And it's always this like vague. Perception and people always describe what they have from a feature perspective a little bit differently too, right? So people often I find in product especially will go a little ahead of what the capability can actually do, right?

It's always the most benevolent description of what the capabilities can do that end up surfacing on marketing pages, et cetera,

and, 

Jeff: that. Not in marketing? 

Aleks: right. No.

never. Not marketing, not sales. No. And so given that environment, we wanted to take a slightly different approach. Of course we wanna watch what's happening in the market and of course we wanna be able to track how people are talking about their products, where they're placing their bets investment wise.

And that should be a touch point that informs our [00:15:00] strategy a hundred percent. But the thing that I think is often underlooked is understanding the competitive nature of individual products from their user's perspective. And so what we ultimately ended up doing is we had the strategy. And part of the strategy for Typeform for Growth was closing key competitive gaps.

And part of the strategy was generating additional revenue from launching net new capabilities that none of our competitors had that we could, help marketers accomplish more of their goals through Typeform, as an example. And so what we did is we sourced, I think it was like one to 200 different customers who were actual users of the products we wanted to assess Typeform against.

So of course we also recruited. Those customers through Typeform two, and we had them evaluate all of the different feature categories that we wanted to compare ourselves against to understand what are truly gaps in the market and what are greenfield areas in the market and where are we falling behind and where are we ahead so we can, clarify for ourselves from a [00:16:00] consumer and a user's perspective.

Where are we overperforming, where are we underperforming? And so we had a bunch of different features categorized into different categories that the users would evaluate. And I. We did this for, I think it was five or six different competitors as well, the most salient competitors in two touch points.

One was right around the launch of Typeform for Growth and one was six months after that. And that gave us the best baseline, right? Because the Typeform for growth launch was around the time we were releasing quite a bit of new functionality that was intended to close some of these gaps. It was interesting because some of the places that we thought others were outperforming us like crazy, they were actually not, and their capabilities were not necessarily meeting or exceeding their customers expectations.

And other places where we thought , we were killing it and we had, we just were so good relative to the competitive set within the market. We had to take a step back and realize maybe we had some growing to do in this as well. But what I actually found is it was such [00:17:00] an interesting tool as well, and it, this wasn't necessarily the intention of it in, when we.

And created this study. The goal of the study was to help us understand where we need to spend more time from a product perspective and close key gaps. But what it also created was a proof point that we were having a material impact on our customer experience through investing in the capabilities we were investing in.

So we did that time one right around the time of Typeform for growth, and we had certain areas that were lit up red, right? And then when we compared the category six months later, in the places where we had invested, it had increased in some cases 30 40% in terms of perceptions from consumers around those areas.

Which is wild to me because when you think about how long it takes for. Capabilities to get out consumers, to use them to form an opinion and have that opinion actually change about the products that they're using and those perceptions to be integrated. It usually takes [00:18:00] a longer time than the cycle that I feel like I witnessed.

It was really impressive to see that come together and it was so encouraging to share with a team that, hey, here's tangible evidence that from the consumer's point of view, the things you all have been working on hard to ship, to solve these key customer problems. Customers are noticing.

And it's changing the perception of Typeform as a product because of it. It was just, it was so exciting to see that it was one of, I think, the best things we did outside of that initial piece of research.

Jeff: That's one of the best payoffs is you. You have all this just immense work to get this research done quickly to ship the product quickly. And like you said, strange relationships. It's mentally taxing and you get it done. But seeing the impact of that being how fast sentiment can change when you really do something special and really do it right, that's, that's the treat at the end of the meal and it's a amazing but I've also kinda learned really quickly on the as we've been talking, just how fast you all move over at Typeform.

But people should take this as evidence that having a more [00:19:00] structured, more thorough research and operations and all this, it's not gonna slow you down necessarily. It might feel like one or two little bits with a little bit more process. You take an extra day to get it right, but getting it right the first time.

That compounds again and again. Where now you're right the first time you're right, you do it right the first time. You get good info, the first time you do an experiment. And what happens is a year down the road you have done user research, you've shipped the product, and you have majorly shifted consumer sentiment around your product.

That's a huge thing in one year. I wanna make sure we are, we don't have a ton of time left. I do wanna make sure we cover the last piece, and I think this is one that, that we touched on briefly, but it gets overlooked a lot in a holistic kind of product cycle, which is how did you, can we maybe talk for a second on the relationship would go to market and how do you then take this and bring it to marketing, bring it to sales and make sure the things are there where sales incented to sell it. Marketing it lines up with [00:20:00] market trends and timing and everything where they're able to go to market and push it and distribute it out and you're able to get it out to change the maker. You're not gonna change. User sentiment at the level that you all did without getting it out there very quickly and getting it into people's hands really quickly too.

Aleks: So one of the things that we did is we followed a very intentional release process. We went into an intensive alpha where we qualified folks across this, a variety of different categories and gave them the new product for free for a few months in exchange for talking to our research team and having feedback sessions and co-creating with us.

And that was an incredibly valuable stage for us because we learned a lot about quick little optimizations that we could make that would, address some of the core pain points that we thought we would see in market if we released at that stage. Then the next phase was beta. And for us it was, can we get you to pay for this, even if it's at a discounted rate?

For the value that you're getting. And that was an interesting touch point because it's [00:21:00] what helped us prove out that people do have a willingness to pay for these things and these features are valuable. They do wanna actually pay for them. And that gave us that extra confidence that we are ready for a launch, right?

And we can release this and it's not perfect and there's things we can always improve, but it's something that allowed us to also have touch points to be able to share across the organization. Look, we are getting signal that people are happy with the capabilities as we've built them and that they're using them and they were willing to pay for the package moving forward to be able to accomplish these use cases.

As well. The other thing I would say is when I think about go to market, it's interesting because there's. We need radical empathy in a lot of these instances, right? It's really easy to think about the things somebody is asking for and to think about the reasons why they might be asking for those things and be dismissive of them.

It's much harder to understand what their day-to-day life is like, what they're having to do as part of the Typeform team. And the fact [00:22:00] that the choices that you are making on a regular basis as a product organization directly impact them positively and negatively depending on which decisions that you ultimately make. 

And these people have their ear to the ground. They are dealing with customers with real life support, challenges, upgrades, downgrades, sales. We have a sales led motion at Typeform as well, so sales conversations. And so they have real perspectives from customers that we would only benefit.

Aleks: From listening to, and so I think the challenge, at least for different organizations when they're scaling and Typeform is still relatively young in its age as a company, it's hard to find the right touchpoint, especially when you don't imagine you don't have a product on the lifecycle.

Things are constantly in the move. Where are you gonna slot in GTM feedback on the things that you're investing in? There's not natural places. And so it's the thing that falls off the back of the truck, right? 'cause the door's not closed. Terrible analogy. But you know what, I'm

Jeff: I got it. It was better [00:23:00] than you think.

Aleks: And the first thing that product operations really helped us to do is to set up this motion where we were gonna create a really distinct intake process, which means anybody in the company can surface ideas, challenges, opportunities that we should be looking at as a product team for what we want to potentially build moving forward.

And then of course, transparency, right? I don't think that, maybe this is not the case in all instances, but at least a Typeform, our JTM teams are genuinely benevolent, right? And they wanna do what's best for the business. And so if they have clarity to why we prioritized X over Y and what they need to do to help us make the case for investing in certain things more intentionally, they're game for it, they're willing to do it, they'll partner with us.

And we've had several examples of that. Of that really true partnership and engagement. And so I think the other pieces, in addition to intake, like taking all of these ideas in, is irresponsible to then put it in your black box. A lot of research agencies back in the day were getting dinged for [00:24:00] this black box approach where it's like you put the stuff in and then something comes out.

We can't tell you how the stuff came out because it's all a mix, right? But it comes out and trust us, we know it's the best, it's the best thing that could possibly come out of this box known to man. 'cause we have the best box anyways. It's just the best. So the idea is that we started the intake process.

We then. Told the organization how we were gonna prioritize. We have constraints, right? We have resource constraints. Teams are organized by domain area, so we can't do 30 things in the creation builder at the same time, right? That's just not how our team is structured to be able to build new capability.

Not to mention, if we did have all the teams working just in the builder, imagine the level of collisions you would see and how chaotic that experience would be without the intentional and purposeful creation that our teams are following. So the idea is, hey, let's actually report back as to why we're [00:25:00] surfacing this, right?

Why we're prioritizing the things that we're prioritizing. And some of them were, Hey, we gotta do this for differentiation 'cause we're losing deals tied to this. And some of it was, this is an opportunity because research is surfacing that this is something people are willing to pay for. And some of it was, we think like that this thing paired with this thing equals better market penetration in this particular use case.

So let's test this out and see what ultimately happens. But that transparency helped us be able to tell the story to our GTM teams and they were able to help us align. And in cases where we both had this feeling like, you know this, it feels like something's there, there's an opportunity here. But we're not really seeing it come through customer requests.

We're not really seeing deals that say they fell through because of it. We work together to figure out are we really getting the right information from all of these sources, or is there something else that we could do to get a sense for, how do we tell what the opportunity is a little bit better [00:26:00] than what either one of our teams are getting signals for today?

And then we partner on that, right? So we have enablement sessions with CSMs or with salespeople to say, Hey, if you hear anything that sounds like these things, flag it for us because these are the kinds of things we're trying to create an opportunity for. And we wanna know if you're seeing some of these things pop up, et cetera.

But it's that transparency and that true partnership and alignment that I think really helps. And learning from each other. So I don't know if you've if you've seen a couple of my LinkedIn posts lately, but there's two ceremonies and it was interesting 'cause I went to Lenny's product Leader Summit back in San Francisco one of the things that, that Coda had surfaced in their session was, what are your company ceremonies, right? What are the things that help your company, function more effectively? And when I think about that, at Typeform, there's two major ceremonies that have an outsized impact for the organization and for collaboration between GTM and R and D teams.[00:27:00] 

One of them is the customer sync, and that's where. We all come together, research, customer success, support sales, all of the functions, basically talk about what are the things they're hearing from customers that particular month, right? Because we do this on a monthly basis and we all align on where's, let's triangulate some of this feedback and figure out what's going on there.

And the second one is our company demo. Because the other most important thing that I think. It's hard to get right is making sure you have transparency on what's shipping. I don't know any product leader that has not heard, I don't know what's shipping, what is the status of x, what is the status of y in their organization.

So we created a company-wide ceremony where everybody can come and see what the product teams shipped in that quarter. And we have demos there and we partner with product marketing on enablement. So TE teams can basically use those resources for sales, for support, and for any of the other, objectives that they ultimately have that rely on some of [00:28:00] these things.

And those two ceremonies have been hugely impactful in fostering that amazing collaboration between GTM and R and D. But I think some natural friction and tension is healthy, right? Because we should be pushing back on some of these ideas and pressure testing them and making sure they are right for the business.

As long as it's done respectfully. And appropriately, I think all good things.

Jeff: Yeah. Healthy competition, right? Because everyone wants to push back and say, sales is always, I lost this deal because of this and if only product has shipped this feature, I would've hit my quota. Or, it's easy for to kind of, take shots at each other like that, but I.

There is a productive level of, I'm hearing this on the market, it has systematically cost us, five, six big deals. And I don't know why we're not prioritizing this versus just going ah, they should have built this. But that kind of, those kind of ceremonies allow you all to come to a shared point of view, viewer shared understanding, [00:29:00] and they can see, oh, they didn't ship that feature because they shipped this, and this is one.

But also as you align on what's going on with the customer, they might be able to realize that was a one-off problem. It's not really a systematic problem. And yeah, we could have built that, but it would've cost us these two features that helped us get, 20 customers. So like, all right, that made, that was a good trade off.

I can live with that kind of thing. No, I love that. The way you came in and built this. Start with research, build in a place for intuition, but also validating and corroborating and strengthening intuition via research, deep research and deep understanding of how to do research. So you can do it quickly, right?

At six months is, oh no, 45 days to do the insights is insanely fast. But that comes from understanding how you do research. Where can you cut the corners? How do you form the hypothesis to go validate? How do you validate them? And to flow this all through. Now let's build it. And this process for building it where it's, make sure that we have validation on the build side and the research side.

Make sure we have [00:30:00] operation setup so we have a cohesive plan of how we're going to build it and how we validate it. And then throughout it, are you checking, is this matching the thing we saw? Is this matching the thing that we talked about originally? And then switching to is this matching what the customer needs is, hi, is this hitting customer?

Were we right originally and are we building the right thing? And is this customer expectations? And how do you bring it forward to go to market? This. You should teach a master's class in this or at least one lecture a semester or something. But

Aleks: I would love that. What do I name it? Research led, and everyone's talking about founder led, what do I call this? Research operations and intuition.

Jeff: Real world guide to shipping. Good stuff. We should think about, we should just publish that. Forget college. We'll just, we'll go the we'll go the skip college route and just pub. We can publish that together. But it's such a good model for how you can have an immense impact so quickly. I hope people have their notebooks out.

'cause this I have a recording, luckily I'm just gonna go back and listen to this again. But this is great. Alex, I, we could keep going on this. At least I could keep talking about this and ask you more and more [00:31:00] questions for another couple hours. It's end of day right now for both of us, so I'll just leave it at, this was fantastic. I feel like I learned so much in the last hour and a half that I am incredibly lucky. If people want to reach out, I think they can be helpful to you if people have ideas to where they can be additive or if they even wanna ask you questions.

Is there a place to get in touch? Is LinkedIn usually the best spot or is there something else?

Aleks: Yeah, LinkedIn is great. Please follow me on LinkedIn, reach out, message me. I'd love to have conversations and learn about how others are doing things and be helpful if there's anything I can do to be supportive to anybody else who's working in this wild space known as product development.

Jeff: it is, I feel like we're at a new renaissance of product lately where people kinda really having to redouble down hall of this stuff works and there's some cool stuff coming up. But yeah, I can vouch follow Alex. You'll get, insights like this regularly. Just into your LinkedIn feed, so it's great.

But thank you so much for coming on. This is a blast. I really appreciate you taking the time. It was really fun going all through this and yeah. Had a good time. Hopefully you did too.

Aleks: I did. Thank [00:32:00] you so much for having me on, Jeff. It was always fun chatting with you.