73% Open Rates, $450K CCOs, and Why Your Headphones Are Judged at Work

[00:00:09] Welcome to Frequency, I'm Jenni Field. And I'm Chuck Gose. Frequency is your go-to for real talk about comms, culture and employee experience beyond the buzzwords and straight to what matters. Jenni, this week we're gonna be talking about a few reports this week, one from Workshop all focused on email, another from Culture Amp about leaders, plus the lives of CCOs and what employees are signaling by wearing headphones.

[00:00:33] But it's a bit different for us this week, after 60 plus episodes we are now recording in person in Toronto. I know, it's so weird. You're like here and I'm here. I'm just glad I'm outside of arm's reach. You would have to make an effort to come after me? We're not gonna get punchy today. We're not gonna get punchy. But we're in Toronto because there was IABC World Conference, which you were speaking at, and then we had comms reboot, which I was running with the folks at Contact Monkey. How was IABC World Conference?

[00:01:04] The highlight was getting to see old friends, right? That's always the benefit. I think I'm not alone when I say that I think the overall experience people had was probably a bit lackluster. Mm-hmm. Not very impressive for a world conference. I think especially for people who have attended world conferences in the past, they've seen this decline. It was obviously, it was still great to speak at the event and not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I'm always happy to do that.

[00:01:31] I know that people gave Panaki, Kathy, Ari and I some really great feedback about our session. We had a lot of fun doing that. So that was really the highlight was just getting to see friends. It was the first chance Panaki and I have had to co-present in the same session of all the times we've known each other. All the events we've been at, we've never co-presented. I like what you had. No, that was the first time. So it was worth the trip. It was good to be a part of, but it's also, there's this cloud over when you kind of understand this event just isn't what it used to be.

[00:01:58] I mean, I was around in the hotel, just sneaking about. And it did feel smaller. But then I remember Vancouver in 2019, which was 1,500 people and it was just out of this world. So, but I did manage to just bump into loads of people in the lobby and stuff, which was really cool. And we had comms reboot, which was good. So we had that, which is yesterday now as we're recording. So we're both, you know, still full of beans after three days of networking. But comms reboot was great. We had a really good bunch. It's an unconference. It was, I loved it.

[00:02:28] Second time doing it. It's a great event because it's a very unique event. And I know that this year's, there was a slightly smaller attendance in the past, but I think that made it a better event and a better experience for everyone because there were deeper connections made. There was a chance to have more in-depth conversations. I think everybody then got a chance to participate. When you've got too many people in a room, it's hard for everyone to find their voice in there. Yeah. I'm excited for you to come to London where there's going to be about 150 people in there. I look forward to that. That'll be, that's October 9th.

[00:02:58] October 9th. October 9th. Comm's reboot is there. Well, let's get into our articles for this week. First up, Workshops 2026 report draws on 186 million emails across 580 companies and 13 industries with a new median open rate benchmark of 73%. That moved from a 76% average last year to a median this year.

[00:03:22] So the numbers they're comparing a bit differently really to keep AI bots and filter inboxes from skewing the number. That's the focus. So the headline figure is best to read as a calibration, not really a decline, which I think is a point to point out. The findings that matter most in this are the ones that go against what comms people most often do, Jenni. Smaller sends beat mass blast decisively under 500 recipients hit at 73% open versus 58% for sends to 5,000 plus.

[00:03:51] I think we've all been in those spaces where we've sent emails to sometimes even more than 5,000 people. This is the part I found really interesting though. Text only emails outperform image emails on click-through rates, 19%, 15%. Even though 97% of all emails include at least one image in there. The engagement sweet spot is four to six sends per week with click-through dropping sharply past 11. Please do not send any more than 11.

[00:04:21] And personalization delivers a steady three-point open rate lift 71 to 68, yet fewer than one in eight emails actually use it. Channel mix in the report shows up too. SMS click rates run nearly three times email, 29% to 11%. And journeys, these automated campaigns that people create, average an 83% open rate.

[00:04:43] So my question to you, Jenni, is if text-only emails are beating image-heavy ones on click-through, but the vast majority, 97%, have an image in it, what are we designing for? Are we designing for us or are we designing for the employee? So this made me laugh because when I was looking at my marketing emails last year, I heard this about just drop the images because you don't need them because they feel like sales emails.

[00:05:11] So we took all of our images out of the emails that we send to people that sign up at Redefining Comms and it improved everything, the response rate, open rate, everything. So I'm a big fan of text-only. But what's fascinating in that is talking to other people that run businesses and saying to them, you know, take the text out, take the image out and do that. And they all go, oh yeah, that makes sense. And then they don't do it. So I'm like, the data is telling you to do it, just do it. So I don't know why there's still images in them.

[00:05:39] I feel like as communicators, we're told that, you know, an image tells a thousand words. What's the phrase? There's some phrase like that. So I feel like we just can't not do it. It's like a compulsion of, I need to put some sort of image in there. The thing that terrifies me about this report though, is that people are sending four to six emails a week. And that's the sweet spot. And that made me think back to when I would send like an all company email or I definitely was not sending four to six emails a week.

[00:06:06] And that just made me think of the volume that people are having to send and just how much stuff is kind of out there. And then I did have a look because I was interested in how this, how internal email compares to external email. Cause I thought, I don't know what the benchmark is. Like we're saying that this is what 73% open rate. So what is it for email marketing? So I had a little look and it is 29, 26.9 to 42.35% open rate.

[00:06:34] So they're saying it's probably going to settle at about 31 to 34%. So internal email is way outperforming marketing stuff, which I just thought was quite interesting. But I always, and my other question on the report was this 5,000 plus 500 recipients. Does that mean that you have segmented your list by some sort of audience segmentation? Or does it just mean that your organization has less than 500 people in it? It could be a bit of both. Yeah. And I just thought, I don't think you can say,

[00:07:04] because in the report it says, which proves that relevance really matters. I was like, I'm not sure that is what that proves. I think it, because I'm not sure that that's a relevance thing. I think it's more, uh, this is how many people we're sending it to. Yeah. I'm curious on that. If it is, let's say if it is the 5,000 plus, which is a lot of enterprise, a lot of fortune 500, that if the 5,000, if it's a blanket email to everyone, yeah. And it's a recurring blanket email to everyone. What does that happen?

[00:07:31] Versus perhaps a 5,000 plus email send that is highly personalized, highly target. Everybody gets an email, but everybody's is going to be a little different. And if you've done that for long enough, would your open rates be higher than the blanket email? But also I imagine if the CEO sends out an email to 5,000 plus people with, Hey, here's your bonus this year, you're going to get a pretty high open rate for that. I think what's also interesting, and this is an area that I believe internal communicators have strayed away from is the SMS.

[00:07:59] The fact that that has such a higher rate, we have to stop ignoring. That is hard though. We have to look at, we have to give employees the choice. If employees want to receive communication via SMS, by all means, let's do that. Not everyone's going to opt in. It has to be opt in, I think. But if you opt in, there's a return on that. But I think also there are different laws about that in different parts of the world. Like I think there's certain parts of Europe where you're not allowed to send things to people's personal phones and stuff like that, which makes that very difficult.

[00:08:28] But I do think, I was just going to say I'm quite old then. I was thinking about SMS when I was working in-house. And for me, and I don't know if it is because I'm old, it was used for crisis. It was used for the emergency stuff. It was used to cut through all the noise and be like, there's a, you know, there's no supply of milk or there's something going wrong. I wonder if that's still the case. And that's why it hasn't caught up with other channels is it's still seen as a crisis emergency channel rather than an everyday.

[00:08:57] I would love to have communicators go to employees and ask them that question. Yeah. Because I think for a lot of employees, that would, that's a more natural place, an easier place to sometimes look for communication, especially whether it's, whether it's true urgency. I don't know what the case you just said. There's no milk. Is that what you just said? Yeah. We had like a supply thing. Oh, okay. We have plenty of milk, I think, here in the States. Or is it, is that just under indexed because of that?

[00:09:22] Is it, are we missing out on engaging employees in a new platform just because we have a predisposed view of what it should or should not be out there? And I would rather employees opt in or opt out than us just opt out for them. Yes. Well, yeah, that doesn't make sense. Yeah. All right. Next up, this is from the wall street journal sent to me from my former boss, Sonia Firenza. Thank you, Sonia, for sending this along. Nearly half of chief communications officers now report directly to the CEO up from 40% in 23 and 37% in 2015.

[00:09:53] Pay is climbing with the title. Median base is 400 to 450,000 up 12 to 14% in two years. Roughly one in seven CCOs say they earn $2 million or more. Gap, Peloton, State Farm, Accenture, and Reddit all recently hired their very first CCO. The driver behind this is fear that everyone is trying to avoid being, quote unquote, the next Bud Light. The catch is in the satisfaction numbers.

[00:10:19] Only 33% of CCOs feel well-equipped by their budgets against 50% of CMOs. And workload satisfaction cratered from 52% to 34% in under a year. The conference board's line is that comms went, quote, from wanting to have a seat at the table to having it and now being overwhelmed by it. Goodyear's Travis Parman calls himself, quote unquote, chief truth teller so he can push back on the CEO.

[00:10:48] This is worth flagging to our listeners here. Almost all of this is really focused on external comms and corporate affairs. Internal comms is barely mentioned in this report. Jenny, chief truth teller sounds quite noble. Until you're the one telling the CEO what they don't want to hear, perhaps even during something like a layoff. Is the value of comms now being honest or controlling the narrative? And can it genuinely be both? I think it can be both.

[00:11:17] But I think when I was reading this article, what stood out for me was what felt like a leadership, a leadership need to not have any accountability or responsibility. It's like, let's create these chief communication officer roles and they can be in charge of making sure that we don't do anything stupid. And then it's all on them, which is why I think everyone feels very overwhelmed because that's how it fit when you're reading the article. It was like, this isn't fair.

[00:11:44] Like, it's not a case of like, let's have a chief communication officer and then they're responsible for all of the, you know, the entire risk and reputation of the organization. Because that's not fair or true. As a director of a company, you are responsible for that as well. So that I didn't like that. It felt like leaders were creating these roles to kind of go, this is on you. Not my job. This is not your job. Yeah, exactly. And I just thought that was a bit horrible. And I think that chief truth teller is unfortunately what communicators feel like they have to do.

[00:12:13] It's a bit like being the ethics police or whatever it is. And it sounds, you said it sounds very noble, but actually if you've got a strong leadership team, they should all be telling each other the truth. And if you're the one person doing that, then there's something very wrong kind of culturally. But you should have a good enough relationship with your CEO to be able to say, that's a stupid idea. Yeah, we're not going to do that. And this is why. And this is what we're going to do. So I think you can do both to answer your question about controlling the narrative. I mean, control is an interesting word there from social media and stuff.

[00:12:43] But I think that the role of the CCO still feels so new that it's almost like it's swung so far the other way with a massive pay packet. And now it needs to find somewhere to settle. It needs more budget. It needs more resource. It needs to settle. And I don't think it's there yet. Yeah, I don't think there's ever enough budget for people. Well, no, that's true. So I think I wasn't surprised by the fact that they said they didn't think they had enough because, like, they said CMOs don't think they have enough. And CMOs have been around for quite a while. What's interesting to me, though, is the reporting structure.

[00:13:13] That nearly half report to the CEO. I'm curious where the other half of the CCOs report into. Because I think a lot of C-suite, you think it's like the CEO and then you've got your C-suite. I hadn't really thought of it as are there C-suites that report to other C-suites who then report to... And then are you in a C-suite or are you in the D-suite? Well, which one is it? Is it the C-suite, the D-suite, the E-suite? I don't know. I don't know. The pay doesn't surprise me. I think this is a big job. It's a lot of money.

[00:13:42] Well, the $2 million is a bit more. I think that's the extreme. That's insane. But when you look at some of these executive pay packages, it is extremely insane. You know, the $400,000 to $500,000, $450,000. That's a great job. That's a great salary. So I'm not surprised by that. I'm not surprised by the disappointment in budgets. Again, nobody's happy. Everybody wants more. It was the reporting structure that caught me a bit off guard. Yeah, where are you all? Yeah. Yeah. Fair. Absolutely. All right. Next up.

[00:14:12] CultureAmp analyzed 1.7 million employees and 22,000 senior leaders and found a canyon-sized sentiment gap. C-suite executives rate their workplace experience up to 40% higher than individual contributors. 78% favorability at the top versus the low 60s below. Perception of leadership has also declined every year since peaking in 2021, drifting back toward pre-pandemic levels.

[00:14:39] Also worth mentioning in this, employees under high-performing leaders are four and a half times more likely to be high performers themselves. Under low-performing leaders, they're three times more likely to underperform. Leader turnover rates drives 40% higher attrition six months out and confidence drops more for indirect reports than direct ones. The damage travels throughout. Their trusted leader profile is the most common, 38%, and the most effective, with 71% of those

[00:15:07] employees rarely looking elsewhere. Jenni, employees under great leaders are four and a half times more likely to be great performers. Cause or correlation? Do great leaders build great employees or do they attract and keep the ones who are already great? It just feels like, like this doesn't feel like there's anything massively, like that's just common. I feel like that's just common sense. If you've got a really great trusted leader, then you're going to have a high-performing team. Like there's so much data out there about that. So it just makes me laugh. Cause I just think, yes.

[00:15:37] When I was reading it, um, I think that the leaders make people great. Like I do. I don't, I don't, I don't think you can say, oh, you're all just brilliant. And you know, I'm also a great leader and isn't this just lovely how we've all come together and it's all, I don't think that's true. I think that a really great leader is going to nurture talent. They're going to listen. They're going to be supportive. They're going to create a high-performing team. Otherwise kind of what's the point of the leader being there if they're not doing that?

[00:16:03] So I think that, I think that the leader is not entirely responsible, but I think they play a significant role in that team performance. Because I also think if you are a great leader, you're going to have those difficult conversations with the people that aren't performing and you're going to address that and deal with it in the, in the right way and not avoid conflict and all of those things. So I think they probably do attract them and I think they keep the ones that are good. And I think that great leaders just attract the people that want to do good work as well.

[00:16:33] I think it's, I agree with you. It seems obvious, but I think it's worth reminding all of us and repeating to all of us the value of great leaders, the downstream effect or upstream effect of that. So if you think about, let's go to our CCO, let's say they're not a great leader. Well, then that next row is going to struggle. So then they're not going to be great leaders. Well, then the next level, like it's, it's going to be a doubt versus the possibility of building a pipeline of people who were these leaders are elevating people to greatness.

[00:17:03] And then there's other people who want to be elevated because they see, wow, look how everybody great is everybody's doing. Yeah. They then want to become a part of that. Yet companies often put people in leadership positions who are not great leaders and who underperform. So that's where these numbers, like it's just a reminder to everybody. Basically the impact they have on everyone's success, not just the bottom line, everyone's success throughout an organization. And I, the report has the different types of leader in it as well, in terms of like the trusted leader.

[00:17:31] And I thought that was quite interesting in terms of the different types. And we've talked on the podcast before about some other research that was like, you can't be, um, a leader can't be everything to everyone. I think it was off a Bruce Dazley podcast. Yeah. And it was sort of saying you've got, you, you can't expect leaders to do it all. And you were like, well, you can't. But I thought this was interesting about the different types. And I do think that to your point of, as you go through an organization, there are probably different types of leader going through that organization that you need to show up slightly

[00:17:59] differently depending on where you are and how you're nurturing and what you're doing. I don't think if you're not a good leader at the top, you can then have, you know, rubbish leaders all the way through your team. I think you could be rubbish at the top and have some brilliance in the middle. That's probably overwhelmed and burning out and trying to hold it all together. Um, and they will eventually go because that's obviously what's going to happen. But I think you can have different levels in there, but I think that's what makes organizational culture hard. I think that's what makes so many things hard. And we talked about being at comms reboot this week and we all heard conversations from

[00:18:29] people talking about, you know, lack of recognition in organizations and things like that. And that all links into line managers and leaders and doing all that really great stuff. People still stay, you know, miserably, but they do stay. So I think there is just lots of different elements to leadership all the way, all the way through. And I liked that in the report, the different types. I think you bring up a good point though, about the burnout side. Is this one of those indicators of it where you've got underperforming leaders and you've

[00:18:54] got great people below them who have to put forth one, two, three X, whatever the effort to battle against that. And they're maybe creating a bit of a shield for it, but eventually they have a limit. Yes. Yeah. Everyone's always going to just peak, aren't they? Like you can't do it forever, but it's just rubbish. When you get there, I just like, just be better. Right. Well, we would all want people to be better. And our last article for the week across studies of more than 2,700 employees, the

[00:19:21] same sentiment showed up every time when coworkers listen to music as leisure, quote unquote, just passing the time they rate as less engaged, offer less help, treat you more rudely when they read as productivity penalty disappears. So there's employees wearing headphones while they're at work. But here's the kicker. Being seen as listening to focus earns you zero extra goodwill in the office place. It only protects you from this penalty.

[00:19:49] And it even held when the listener was genuinely focused when they were doing the work. People weren't judged for what music they did to them, but for the story coworkers invented about them. Visible leisure cues, quote unquote, things like head bobbing, singing along, dancing in your seat triggered this bad read. And a quick, quote unquote, social account, like heading into deep work while music's going on, shifts the perception.

[00:20:16] The researchers advised their managers to treat it as an attribution problem, not a disciplined one. And default to assuming productivity that employees doing what's best for them. For our audience, though, I think this is a bit of a culture problem, literally wearing headphones. It's the same ambiguity fills with assumptions dynamic that runs right in remote and hybrid work and the same productivity productivity theater trap companies fall into.

[00:20:44] I mean, this is really about coworkers filling ambiguity with assumptions and making up stories and remote hybrid work is nothing but potentially ambiguous signals to people. Are we quietly asking employees to spend energy managing perceptions that have nothing to do with their actual output? OK, we need to go back a little bit with this story because I have questions. OK, so what's your view on headphones at work? Like where? I have zero judgment of people wearing headphones at work.

[00:21:12] I find it really weird. Really? Yeah. I don't know why you would need to wear headphones at work. Have you heard of an open office environment? Yes. OK, I just didn't know if you'd heard of that or not. I'm not that old. But I... Because when these people are going return to office, this is the environment most of them are going back into is this open office cubicle world environment. You need your space. But why would you not just book a meeting room or like one of the little booths or things like that to go and do the work that you need to focus in on?

[00:21:43] Have you seen me try to fit in one of those booths? I do not. I do not fit. I do not fit. I do not fit. I do not fit in those booths. You want to be in your space. Like you just want... What if they're not listening? It's just pure noise cancellation. You've got a noisy co-worker over here doing sales calls. You've got something else going on out here. You've got people holding meetings in the hallway that shouldn't be in the hallway. I was... Well, I don't see the problem. But do you think people did it before the pandemic? And do you think it's now since the pandemic? Yes, I guarantee people did it before. Because people did do it a little bit before, but it was always like you don't need headphones in.

[00:22:13] So then it just... Just no, it wasn't okay. Yeah. I always found... I always thought it was rude. So if I saw people with headphones in... So you were making up stories. I wasn't making up stories. I just felt like work is a social thing. Like you're here at work. There's people around you. Like there's like elements of chit chat. If you're there without your headphones in, to me, that's like, I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to hear you. I don't want to be in anywhere like it's a real signal to me that you don't want to be any part of this social element of work.

[00:22:43] And... What if somebody went in with like blinder glasses on and they just couldn't see around? I'm okay with that. Okay. But I also wonder whether this is something to do with this sort of multitasking world that we live in now that we didn't have, you know, probably 10 years ago, whereas it's like, oh, I can be listening to music and doing that. We're all trying to do too many things all at once. I just wanted to talk about your view on it because I clearly think quite strongly. I bet truly it is a bit of a noise cancellation thing for people where it's loud in a lot of open office environments.

[00:23:12] There's a lot of distractions in it. And if you're one of the people that you need, maybe it's music, maybe it's white noise, maybe it's pure noise cancellation, you're doing what's best for you. Like you can make that choice and manage your life. And if it's listening to a little Duran Duran while you're working and it helps you be more productive, great. If it's noise cancellation, whatever it is, it's to me, the funny part is the perception. Yeah. That even if it's best for you and even if it's best for the company, the perception is something's wrong.

[00:23:42] I think that for me, it's what it signals to the relationships at work. And we know that relationships at work are hard because of remote hybrid, you know, people are struggling to navigate how to have relationships at work in the sense of having difficult conversations or building relationships, whatever it is. So if you're coming into an office and you're in two days a week and the whole time you're in there, you've got your headphones in. It's not saying the whole time people are doing that. No, I'm just, I'm. Oh, you're projecting. Got it. Okay, good. Let's go to the extreme. Yeah, absolutely. We'll come back.

[00:24:11] Then what does that mean for how you're going to build relationships at work? So I, for me, it's a, it's a bigger thing. I don't, I don't, I think it's weird that people have this sort of judgment of, okay, I'm going to think that it's productivity, it's fine, or it's this. I think that is a bit strange and I don't think managers can police that, but I think people could say, look, I'm going to wear my headphones today because I've got to get some work done and I just need to cancel out the noise. But if you need me or you're going to make a cup of tea, you know, give me a. Maybe that's what people do. But this, well, yeah. Okay. Maybe that is what people do.

[00:24:40] But I just, I think of the bigger issue, relationships at work, how is that helping you maintain, keep those relationships? Would you rather, would you rather have someone sit in their cubicle? With headphones on, getting work done. Yeah. Let's say all day. Let's go to the extreme. Okay. Versus someone sitting in one of your fancy little cubicle booth things all day getting work done. I don't think it matters because they're just getting work done. But the other one, the person is like immersing themselves in the environment.

[00:25:09] Like they are approachable versus the other person in their weird little tiny booth is a bit much. Well, yeah. And I suppose it, it, it depends on whether it is all the time. Like if you're coming into the office and you're always going to go and sit in a booth and you're away, then why are you coming into the office anyway? Like that's ridiculous. I just. I feel like this is a bit too judgy on people of they're doing what's best for them in that environment, whether it's noise cancellation, whether it's music, maybe, you know what, maybe they're on a phone call and they don't want to be on speakerphone. But I, I, I love you too judgy.

[00:25:38] It's not like us at all. Um, I'm not against people doing stuff that they used to do for them. What I'm worried about is sometimes we do things that are best for us that have a unintended consequence on the relationships we have at work. And I think that's the thing I'm mindful of is yes, it might be best for you, but what's that doing for your relationships and everything else that's going on? That wraps up our content for this week. Sorry for those that lingered through that headphone story.

[00:26:06] Uh, what are you freaking out about this week? So I am freaking out. What am I freaking out about this week? I think I'm freaking out about doing this with you in real life. It's amazing. It is amazing. It's fun. It is amazing. It's really cool. And I think that I've just spent, I've spent a lot of this week talking to lots of different people in comms and different parts of the world and connecting while being here. And I think it's made me freak out a little bit about the future of the industry. Where is it going? How people feel about stuff that overwhelm the burnout, all of those things.

[00:26:36] So I've got a lot going on from the conversations this week, but I think that my main thing is trying to go forward with quite a lot of positivity in the sense of community. And I think I really feel that this week. Yeah, it was, it was cool this week when I was telling people what we'd be doing today, recording live. And then this is our first time recording in person with each other. And they're like, how many episodes have you guys done? Pretty amazing. I think people are starting to recognize the commitment we have in, in the industry for that. Yeah.

[00:27:03] I had a freak out and now I'm changing it based on what happened on a ride over here to the studio. Thank you, Toronto podcast for hosting us today. Uh, my freak out was going to be a flyover festival. That's not my next big thing. August 27th in Sioux Falls, our big event in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It's going to be amazing. That's what my freak out was going to be. Now it is going to be about Ubers, Jenni, because there's a bit of a stigma or behavior

[00:27:30] pattern happening out there where I am often, and I've noticed this on this trip as well. So we are people that get the Ubers. We don't wait typically for someone else to get it. We're like, I've got it. We're going to pick it up. So I'm often that person. If it's a couple of people, you just, I just usually get an Uber X or whatever the Lyft version of it is. You get in a normal car, but if there's more than two people, I don't like to be too crammed into a spot. So I'll always get an Uber XL.

[00:27:57] Now, everybody then assumes that because someone is tall, they want to sit up front. No one wants to sit up front in an Uber. No one wants to sit up front in Uber. Literally no one. So I got us a big SUV and I end up sitting in the front because here's what happens. People that don't sit in the front of Ubers don't know this. The Uber driver always moves the passenger seat up so that people can get more easily in out.

[00:28:25] So there's actually less room in the front seat. So people stop sending the tall people to the front seat of an Uber, especially if they ordered the Uber. That's my freak out. He was very angry about it. Not angry. You huffed. It piles. I huffed. You huffed. You huffed. You were like, oh. 100% huffed on that. Absolutely. Yes. It was. It was a huff. So please respect the top people in the Ubers.

[00:28:54] Anyway, that's what we're freaking out about this week. Thank you all for joining us. The show notes have all the articles and links from today's conversation. If frequency is a regular part of your week, a quick review goes a long way. Subscribe wherever you're listening and share this with just one person who's interested in what we talked about. Thank you to my friend Poet Ali for the music. We're back every Monday. See you next week.