Jared Spool: Hey, I’m excited to be here. Are you excited to be here? Let’s make some noise if we’re excited about everything we’re going to learn today.
Jared: Fantastic. Let’s get this thing started. In 2009, the CEO of Hyatt Hotels, facing lagging revenues and dropping customer satisfaction scores, decided that he wanted to do something that no one in the hotel industry had ever done before. He was going to give away free stuff.
What he was going to give away were things like in-room massages and picking up people’s bar tabs. He was going to have all of his employees just do this completely at random, when customers least expected it. He called it “Random Acts of Generosity.”
The idea was that if customers suddenly receive some gift, they would forget about all the things that were making their stay miserable.
It didn’t work.
He thought that if he were to give out these amazingly awesome “Free Delighters,” he called them, that the things that were frustrating his customers, like broken air conditioning, or hot water not working in the showers, or the banquet staff frozing…frozing? The banquet staff serving frozen pies…frozing serving pies…I’m from America, we speak English.
The banquet staff serving frozen pies, and just a grumpy guest services staff that never seem to want the guest to be in the hotel, that that somehow would disappear. It seems obvious in retrospect that this wouldn’t work. But more interesting, we can predict why.
There are tools that at our disposal to help us see what happens when someone uses our product. One of the ones that I happen to love is called the customer journey map.
A customer journey map is very simple to make. The first thing you do is you just list out all the things that your customer is going to do in the process of using your product or service.
Then, as a timeline, you basically measure how it goes from extreme frustration to extreme delight, and you see what happens.
For example, in this case, where our customer is trying to book a hotel online, we can see that searching for the hotel worked really well, but once we got to the property, actually figuring out which room you wanted to stay in was not very good, because the descriptions didn’t seem to tell you anything useful.
Once we started booking, things got better, but then getting into billing and payment information, that was frustrating because it kept asking you to take spaces out of phone numbers and where that silly security code was, and there were all sorts of things that I kept getting errors for.
Suddenly we work through this, and we’re done. That’s it. Suddenly we can tell what is working well and what isn’t.
If we do this once, twice, a dozen times, a hundred times, we suddenly have a way of measuring what is frustrating and what has delighted our customers.
If we take this a step further, we can look a little deeper, we can see what’s going on here. You can think of any experience as one that goes from the range of being frustrating to being, delightful.
We want delight, I don’t know any team who sets out to frustrate their customers. Nobody says, “You know what would be awesome? If we just made them a little bit more frustrated than they were.”
Well, maybe their airlines do that, but nobody else seems to want to do that.
This is the path. We want to bring our scores up.
Turns out that the way we do that changes because of the middle. The middle is the idea of something being usable, something being just neutrally OK.
It’s neither frustrating nor delightful, and it’s an important point to pay attention to, because the things we do to get to the middle are different than the things we do to get away from the middle.
To get to that usable point, really the rule is, “Stop sucking so much.” But to get to the delightful part, we invert that, and we say, “Start being delightful.”
That difference is really important. It turns out that being not sucky is an act of removal. You take things away.
It’s similar to how Michelangelo deals with sculpture, carving out the stuff that he doesn’t want, whereas delight is an additive activity. We add to make something delightful. We actually have to understand this difference between getting to that neutral point of usable.
Our whole process has to change once we get there. Everything we were doing that got us the success to that point will stop working to get us further.
When we think of strategy we think of, OK if we’re going to have some user experience strategy for our product, what does that mean? Well, it’s simply just that process, of getting things from frustration to delight.
That’s really its simplest form. The way that we do that turns out to be not as simple. Fortunately, we have a guide through this. It’s a Japanese economist named Noriaki Kano. Kano was smart enough to ask a simple question, “What’s the amount of investment that an organization has to make to truly delight their customers?”
He started to plot out what companies had done, and he created this interesting model of how businesses work. The model uses our friendly scale here, from extreme frustration to extreme delight. It compares that to investment, from low investment to high investment.
Now, when he started to map out what made companies successful, he saw three basic patterns. The first one, he called the performance payoff. This is just the creation of features. If we’re building a hotel, putting in a restaurant, putting in a pool, putting in air conditioning.
These are the things that are features that basically add to the experience of the hotel. Make more investment, then you get payoff. He also found two other interesting patterns that were as equal, if not more, important than the performance payoff.
The first one, he called basic expectations. Basic expectations are the things that you bring, that you expect the product to do for you. In my hotel room, there’s a water closet. It’s got a sink, a toilet, a shower. Nowhere in the hotel brochure did it mention this.
They didn’t have to give it to me. They never promised it to me. Yet, I showed up and had it not been there, I would have, not been a happy guest at that hotel. That’s a basic expectation. We expect certain things to just happen, even though the company never promised it to be there.
The other curve that Kano said we need to pay attention to was what he called “Excitement generators.” Excitement generators tell us what will delight our customers, often with not very much of an investment.
Just teaching the hotel staff to smile would make Hyatt’s much better to stay at. It doesn’t cost a lot to do that. We can do this, and this is where this notion of delighters in products came from, is through these excitement generators.
It turns out there’s a lot of richness in this chart that Kano gave us, so let’s take it a step further and look a little deeper. Let’s start with the performance payoff. When Apple comes out with a new version of their operating system, they talk about features.
It’s not what the features are, per se, it’s just how many there are. They try to get the biggest number they can. Of course, we’re all excited. We line up at four in the morning to get copies of this thing so that we can find out what the new features of text edit are going to be.
That’s what we’ve been waiting for.
This is what companies do. A startup comes out with their first product, and what do they do? They put three features in it because frankly, that’s the only resources they have. They can get these three features built.
Because they’ve thought real hard about it for a long time, they’ve built amazing features, and everybody loves it, and it’s great. Then maybe there’s two more features that they couldn’t get into that first release before they ran out of money, so they put that into the 1.5 release.
Then people love the thing, and they say, “OK, you know what? It’d be awesome if you had more features,” so that’s when version 2.0 comes out, and they add a few more. Now people are suggesting features, and they’re coming up with even more things that they’d like to see in the product.
Features are coming in, and now suddenly big companies are paying attention, and they’re like, “You know, we’ll buy 10,000 seats if you add a whole bunch of features here.” Sure enough, we add a whole bunch of features here, and finally we get to this point where someone’s putting big bags of money on the table.
They’re basically saying, “You know, we will buy thousands and thousands of seats if you put this one feature that we know no one else will use, but we will use it, into your product.” And bam! Here we are, feature hell.
This is the sad life of the product manager.
Yes, feature. Feature, feature. Feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature. Feature, feature, feature. Feature…Feature, feature, feature. Feature, feature, feature, feature, feature and feature.
It’s like listening to Donald Trump talk about China.
Have you heard of him?
I don’t know if you’ve been paying to the American elections, but the entire Republic party, Central Casting has done a fantastic job this year.
Just been awesome!
This is the thing, right? Now we’ve got this product that takes forever to do anything with. It’s hard to learn. It’s hard to use. It’s hard to maintain.
Just making small changes takes forever, because there’s so many options and configuration changes you can change with every possible combination, and then there’s the billing engine.
Nobody will touch the billing engine, right?
The last person who worked on the billing engine ran out of the building naked.
Welcome to experience rot. Experience rot is what happens when we add so many features that we have created this massive amount of complexity, and we have completely destroyed the user’s experience.
It happens with every product. But it turns out that there is something we can do about this, something that’s under our control.
The smart organizations, this is where they often really rally around this idea of creating a user experience team and doing user experience research, and what they do when they do the user experience research is they send people out into the field to study what the product is being used as.
What they learn is that hardly anybody is using any more than just a handful of important features. Nobody’s using the other features.
Just knowing that helps you quite a bit, because you can organize the product around those features, but you can do even more, and the really smart companies do this.
What they do is they come out with a whole new version of the product, a new release that only has those features, and they carefully design those features so they all seamlessly work together, and they all fit together, and the underlying architecture is such that they’re easy to maintain and they’re easy to enhance.
The whole thing is done well. This is how you get past experience rot. Often, whenever I’m talking about this, someone will come up to me and say, “You know, that’s really awesome, except at our company, that could never happen. At our company, we have an unwritten law that once a feature goes in, it has to stay in until we all die.”
“Features can never come out, there’s no way our company will do this.” I look them straight in the eye, and I say, “I have no problem with this. You don’t have to do this, because if you don’t do this, your competitor will. This is how we make new startups.”
Every startup is because there’s some major player in the marketplace who has experience rot and has created something awful. You don’t have to do this. You don’t have to be the startup. You don’t have to own the market from that point on.
It’s OK with me. I still sleep well.
There’s another way to prevent this, but you have to start much earlier than release six. It’s a two-letter methodology, it’s called, “No.” “No, we’re not going to put that feature in.”
“No, that’s not going to happen. We’re going to keep the design clean and useful. We’re only going to add things that actually help the user’s experience, that actually solve a problem for the customer. That’s what we’re going to focus on.”
This is the real job of the product manager, and this is what has to happen to make sure that products are well-designed. That’s basically how we deal with the performance payoff, but that’s not the only thing we have to deal with.
Kano pointed out that probably the most complicated thing was dealing with basic expectations. Basic expectations are the things you don’t get to decide. They’re the things the customer bring with them.
I’m staying in a hotel. We’re up on the seventh floor. When I turn on the shower, I expect the water to be hot like that. I don’t know where that expectation comes from. It definitely doesn’t come from my one-storey house where I turn on the hot water in the shower and it takes three minutes for it to get hot.
It’s not because this is what I live with at home, but I have this expectation that water should be hot instantly. This is a crazy expectation, particularly on tall hotels.
Imagine what it’s like to get the water up into the 32nd floor of a hotel and have it be hot all the time. How does that work? I bet you don’t know how that works.
It’s actually pretty cool. The way the hotel does it is they have heaters all along the circulation system, and they constantly circulate the hot water through the hotel at tremendous expense to you, the guest, they are constantly making sure that hot water is never more than a few inches away from the tap of the shower.
They don’t tell you this. They just do it, because of this expectation that they didn’t get to set. If they don’t meet that expectation, you are an unhappy customer. This is a map of a township in Ireland called “Airfield.” One of the fascinating things about this little township of Ireland is that, within its borders, it does not contain an airfield.
It was not until iOS 6 Maps came out.
IOS 6 Maps, somebody decided that it must have been a mistake that Airfield, Ireland did not have the airfield symbol, so they gave it that.
Then, everybody in the UK and elsewhere was completely amused by this, everybody, except for the UK Civil Aviation Authority, who do not find this amusing one bit. They actually were quite petrified of this, because they imagined some poor pilot having some sort of emergency, needing to make an immediate landing, reaching into their pocket and pulling out their iOS device.
Looking up the nearest airfield…
And being told there’s a safe landing in Airfield, Ireland, where there is not. Here’s the thing about iOS 6 Maps. Technically, it was one of the best mapping platforms to ever hit society. The underlying technology was amazing. Just one example of many is that it’s the first mapping system to be fully accessible to people who were blind.
It has complete audio cues for everything on the map when it gives you directional guidance. It actually makes a tone in the background that let you know that you’ve gone off the path, or the bus you’re sitting on is taking a turn it shouldn’t have taken, so that you can do something about it. It’s completely amazing in many different ways, except for a couple little problems. Like, the post-apocalyptic view of Manhattan.
The flattening of the Eiffel Tower…
The re destruction of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the dipping of the Hoover Dam, and my personal favorite, the discovery of the long, lost castle of the Burger King.
Now, the thing is that, the technology work great, but the data did not. The data was the problem here. The thing that you go to for a map app is the data. You would prefer not to find your house wasted as being in the river, just alongside it where it actually is. It turns out that that’s a basic expectation, that apparently Apple didn’t know.
It’s hard to get these things right, and it’s easy to mess basic expectations. That’s the thing. If Apple had gotten the data completely right, nobody would have talked about it. You would have got neutral satisfaction. Nobody talks about things that are neutrally satisfying. They talk about things that are delightful. They talk about things that are frustrating, but they don’t talk about things in the middle.
Yet, if you spend all the money you’re going to spend on basic expectations, the best you will ever do is neutral satisfaction. That’s it because it’s an expectation. We just expect this to work. We expect the toilet to flush. When the toilet doesn’t flush, we tell people. When it does, we don’t talk about it.
I got to tell you about this toilet.
You only had to press it once.
That’s, American thing. The only thing we can do with basic expectations is got them wrong. That’s the problem we have. They cost a lot, and we can only screw it up. This is what makes our jobs difficult because we have to constantly be ensuring. We have met expectations that our competitors set, that other industries have set, that we have no say in.
We constantly have to work at ensuring that we are making basic expectations. Let’s talk about excitement generators. I want to go back to that customer journey map because the customer journey map gives us a picture of what things are like today. What we can do with this map is we can ask a really interesting question.
What would that same customer’s experience be, if we made the entire thing delightful? What is that experience like? That’s what excitement generators are for. To talk about excitement generators, the way I like to do it is to use a model that a speaker will be on stage later. Dana Chisnell is going to use at Invented.
Dana’s model basically breaks things into three different areas, what she calls, “Pleasure,” “Flow,” and “Meaning.” These three areas make up the different ways we can approach getting delight to our customers. Let’s start with pleasure, there are these two professors from the University of Michigan, who created a project they called the “Significant Objects” project.
What they did was, they went to eBay, and they would buy pieces of junk, little statues, and other catchka. That was all about these things that people would have in their homes for no reason, whatsoever. They wouldn’t pay a whole lot of money for these things. They would just pay pennies for them.
Then, what they would do is, they would give these things to people who are working on a project, all of whom were writers. They would ask the writers, to write a story telling the history of this object, and why it was important to the owner. These guys would fictionally create these stories that would make up why these figurines was a good luck charm for somebody, and how it been passed down for generations.
Now, the last generation doesn’t need it anymore, and they’re selling it on eBay, and maybe someone else can get good luck from it. They would take the story and the little piece of junk that they bought. They put them back up on eBay together and see what would happen. What would happen is, people would buy it. This one’s sold for $193.50.
Now, the only difference, the twin, the original statue, and what they put back on eBay was the story, the story that gave it the value, a value of $190.50. The writer didn’t even get paid that much. First, this seems like an interesting experiment, but we’ve seen this repeated stuff over and over again. We do a lot of studies of people shopping on e-commerce sites.
We were watching people shop for cameras that they wanted to buy on Walmart.com. What we noticed about Walmart.com is, when people would try and figure out which camera was best for them, they’d end up on the product description page. The product description page was basically content that Walmart.com’s buyers had copied and pasted on to the description page.
What they didn’t do was add any value there. They just took with the manufacturers gave them. The problem was that, if you look at one camera versus another, it was very hard for the customer to figure out what the differences were, because every product description page was in a different format with different terms, with different elements.
This was obviously done for the expeditious of getting the product up, but not necessarily for helping the shopping experience. Pretty much, every electronics vendor that we study, they did this same thing. They would just copy and paste what the manufacturers gave them. After all, the manufacturers know their product more than anybody. Why wouldn’t we do that? Every company did this, except one.
A company called “Crutchfield.” Crutchfield didn’t use the manufacturer’s descriptions. Instead what they did is, they would give the products to their very passionate customer support people, and ask them to give the thing a thorough run-through. Those support people in turn would then make videos.
They would create large databases that would allow you to compare one product to another. They would write extensive product research reports, that would give all sorts of details about the product just at a level of depth that nobody else does. For instance, they would list out everything that comes in the box, including the USB warning note.
When we would watch customers finally buy their cameras, we notice something fascinating. Every customer had a budget. The budget was always set to be slightly higher than the camera they were hoping to buy.
What we would find on sites like Walmart is that the customers would spend about 89 percent of their budget, exactly what we predicted they would spend when they were shopping.
On Crutchfield, the average customer spent 237 percent of their budget. They would not only spend 100 percent that we gave them. They would add 137 percent of their own money, to finish the product purchase process. The only difference between Crutchfield and Walmart was the story. When we talked to customers, the word they use to describe the difference in the shopping experience was pleasure.
It was way more pleasurable to shop on Crutchfield. What was fascinating about this is that there wasn’t anything in Crutchfield’s design that would indicate it was a happier place. There wasn’t anything that was smiley, or fancy happy talk, or any of that stuff. It was all business. It just was the business the customer wanted.
Since the customer was making an expensive purchase, and they needed confidence, this was pleasurable. Pleasure doesn’t take a lot of effort. It’s a small investment. It doesn’t have to be putting dancing gerbils on the site. It can be just doing a good job.
What about flow? In the United States, there’s an insurance company “Poll Progressive.” It turns out that their mascot is a woman named Flo. That’s actually not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is how Progressive actually completely changed the online insurance industry.
Turns out, before the Progressive launched their site, the average insurance quote, online, would take 20 minutes, and 80 percent of the time you would find out you were declined. Most of the time you were declined because they did not sell insurance in your state.
It would take 20 minutes to get to that point. Now Progressive decided to change the way insurance quotes were done online, so the first thing they did was they asked you what your zip code was. That immediately told them whether you were in their service area or not.
Turns out now they sell service-wide, so you’re always in their service area. Then the next thing they did is they would ask you for your name and your address and your birthdate. That’s it.
This is a very different structure than the multi-page forms that the previous insurance companies were using. This is all they asked, because, from this data, they could then go and look up, in the registry of motor vehicles, what your owned cars were? Ask you which of those you want to insure, get other information from you about who’s going to be driving those cars.
They could deduce from the database what the safety information was, so they didn’t have to ask you about that. They could deduce a whole bunch of things, except for things like mileage, and finally they would then give you a quote.
They reduced it from 20 minutes down to under three minutes, with a quote that was competitive. Now they’ve gone even further. Not only do they give you a quote for their product, they give you a quote for their competitors’ products, too, right on the screen.
Sometimes the competitors’ products cost less than theirs, but because they managed to reduce the number of screens from about 40 down to six, and the time from 20 minutes down to three, they are actually now selling more insurance, even when the competitors have cheaper prices.
This is how they were able to get delight from Flo. Flo is removing all the things out of the process, all the things that computers can do, out, so that the user can do what they need to do.
The hardest thing for delight is meaning. In the states, we have a company called Zipcar. Zipcar parks cars in cities, so you don’t have to own one, and you basically rent them by the hour, and you do the whole transaction online.
That, by itself, is pretty delightful, but what makes it even more delightful is that because the cars are all parked in your neighborhood, they regularly get people together in the neighborhood for little parties.
On the badges for those parties, they put your name and the name of the car you always rent. Turns out every car has a unique name, like “Mustafa,” and the badges say what cars are the ones you like to rent.
You can go around the party and meet your neighbors who you may have never met before, but you share something in common, which is you all rent the same car, which is actually an important thing to know, because next time you’re thinking about leaving it a little dirtier, or not filling up the gas the way you should, you will remember that party and who you met.
They do even more than this in that they do little programs. Like on election day, they will let you rent the car at a discount if you promise to take people who can’t get to the polling place to the polling place, or they will, on Thanksgiving, let you rent the car if you promise to deliver turkeys to people who can’t normally afford them, or on Christmas deliver gifts to families that can’t afford those.
It’s those acts that really help the customers find meaning in what it means to share a car with a community, and it’s that notion of sharing the car with the community that the company really gets around their delight.
That’s what people talk about. Those are the stories they tell. The thing about Zipcar is that it’s authentic, and it turns out that authenticity is key.
United Airlines would love me to believe that they actually care about me, and when they ran a bunch of commercials talking about how much they actually cared about the Olympic athletes that I might be following, the thinking was that I love the Olympics, they love the Olympics, we’re all together on this.
But here’s the problem. I love the Olympics. They love the Olympics. They hate me.
This is clear. They don’t hold back on this. I cannot get meaning from their little gesture with the Olympics. I’m sure it’s awesome. I hope they don’t do the same thing to the Olympic athletes that they did to me, which is “Make the Olympic athletes hate them, too.”
Meaning is the hardest of the things to do. It takes the most investment. It takes a long time, but if you can pull it off, it has huge returns. This is basically it. The thing is that you have to know that over time, things that are delighters today will become basic expectations tomorrow.
It used to be that it was delightful to go to a hotel with WiFi. Now if the hotel doesn’t have WiFi, or if it doesn’t work, or if it’s not fast enough, we get pretty upset about it.
They never promised any difference. That’s our expectation that we’re bringing.
You have to be prepared for basic expectations to change over time. That’s the essence of excitement generators.
If we go back to the customer journey map one more time, and we look at what the map is telling us, we can see that we have our current experience, we have the experience that we’re aspiring to that’s going to be all delightful.
The gap between the current experience and that aspirational experience has a name. We call it innovation.
Innovation is what gets us to our aspirational experience. In the United States, doing your annual taxes is a chore. It’s particularly a chore for people who have probably not mastered a lot of math skills because of their education or they have issues understanding the complexity of the process of what all these things mean in business, and they make mistakes on their tax form.
Intuit came out with a product called SnapTax. SnapTax is very simple. You take your phone. You take a picture of the form that your employer gives you, known as your W-2, or your 1099, you snap a picture of that.
It scans the document. Turns out everything that’s needed to file your taxes is actually on that document. It scans all the information off. It opens up an electronic filing docket. It pushes that information into the docket.
If you happen to be one of the people who works at more than one employer, you take a picture of every single one of your W-2s. It compiles them into a single tax form. It shows you the outcomes. It does the math correctly.
It says, “Would you like to file? If so, here’s the refund you’re going to get. We’ll file it today. You’ll have your refund in two weeks.”
You want to do that? Yes. Filing your taxes becomes a less than 15-minute chore. That’s delightful. That’s innovative.
But here’s the thing about innovation. Innovation is a word that we use all the time.
Frankly, I don’t think it means what we think it means. People think that innovation is about inventing something. Intuit didn’t invent anything.
They didn’t invent taking pictures. They didn’t invent using a camera phone. They didn’t invent scanning documents. They didn’t invent filling out forms. They didn’t invent electronic filing.
They invented nothing, and yet it’s still innovative. It’s innovative because they added value. We don’t need to invent anything, we just need to add value where it didn’t exist before.
Which brings me to the road map. Martin promised we were going to talk about road maps. You’re a product manager, you probably always talk about road maps.
The roadmap, for those of you who haven’t experienced this joy, is a detailed description of what we’re going to do over the next few releases. It talks about all the features that we’re going to add to the next few releases, some of which may not happen for months, or years, but yet we still have to commit to all the features.
Feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature, feature. That’s the roadmap, and we have to get more and more features, so we can have more and more stuff with every release.
I thought this was the way it had to be until I talked to this guy. This is Bruce McCarthy. He’s a product manager’s product manager. He’s a really sharp dude. He’s been doing this for a long time, and he has an idea he calls “Themes.”
The basic essence of themes is you take out the features, and you replace them on the roadmap with the actual problems you’re going to solve for your customer.
Instead of having a list of features, we have a description of customer problems that we are committing to solve. Now, his big contention is the basic benefit from this is that you no longer have to commit to some technological solution that three years from now may be completely inappropriate.
That’s great, but frankly, that’s not the big win. The big win comes from the fact that we have the entire organization basing its strategy on customers and their problems.
You cannot start to fill this out until you’ve done some basic research as to who your customers are and what they do with the product. You can figure out what your competitors are doing better than you, but you can also figure out where they have completely missed the gap and there are problems out that nobody’s solving, and you can go for it.
The beauty of this is that we’re not talking about solutions. One of the things that we’ve known for a long time is that the best designers don’t fall in love with their solutions, the best designers fall in love with the problem.
The beauty of focusing on customer problems is that we are focused on falling in love with the problem. This turns out to work perfectly with the journey map, because where are the problems? They’re really easy to find.
They’re right there at the bottom of the journey map. When we look at what Kano’s model told us, we can see that there are problems that we can solve in every possible one of the tracks.
We are in a perfect place to solve the problem, to understand them, to focus on customers, to make sure that we’re doing the right thing, and to get to the basic expectation problems, and to get to the problems that would delight.
This makes a complete strategy. A strategy that is based on our customers’ problems is in essence, a strategy that’s based on user experience. This is your UX strategy.
That’s what I came to talk to you about today. We need to cut out features to avoid experience rot. We need to make sure that we are constantly understanding the user’s experience to be able to figure out what those missed basic expectations are.
We can create delight by focusing on pleasure, flow and meaning. Themes allow us to shift the conversation from features to actual customer problems, and finally, our roadmap can be centered around what users really need, not what we think we need to ship, to make the checklist as big as possible.
If you found this the least bit interesting, I write about this a tremendous amount on uie.com. If you’re in the design space and we’re not connected on LinkedIn, please, by all means, connect to me on LinkedIn.
I’d be more than happy to find out more about what you’re doing and what you’re up to and the challenges that you face. Finally, you can follow me on the Twitter’s, where I Tweet about design, design strategy, design education and the amazing customer service energy in the airline industry.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for encouraging my bahavior.