Oliver Atkinson sits down with media pioneer Bill Harvey, creator of Resonance Media Theory (RMT), to explore why understanding human motivation beats chasing attention, and how a breakthrough audience measurement system is reshaping the future of marketing, media and AI.

Bill shares the remarkable story behind a lifelong quest that began when he experienced flow state as a child performer and led to decades of research into how audiences really make decisions. Discover how a project that started with 13,000 psychological descriptors was refined to 265 “value signals” that predict what people connect with. He also unpacks why media and creative should never be separated, comparing media to the rocket and creative to the payload. The conversation dives into Wharton’s largest-ever neuroscience study, where RMT proved a stronger predictor of brain synchrony than three out of four EEG measures, challenging long-held assumptions about attention, persuasion and effectiveness.

With marketers under increasing pressure to deliver measurable outcomes, this episode offers a fresh perspective on why motivation matters more than demographics, why context can reduce wasted media spend, and how future AI systems may need to understand human feelings before they can truly help people.

 

 

• 04:19 – The Silo Problem: Why Separating Creative from Media is Costing Brands:  Media and creative have been divided since the 1980s, but to the consumer they're one seamless experience. 
  
  
• 12:27 – The 265 Value Signals: How  Learning Stripped Human Choice Down to Its Core: Starting from 13,000 psychological words, Bill's system used machine learning to identify the 265 value signals that actually drive content adoption and audience behaviour.
  
  
• 31:16 – One Resonant Exposure Beats Multiple Irrelevant Ones: A single ad placement in a psychologically aligned programme produced significant purchase intent lifts, proving resonance reduces the frequency needed to drive results, and the cost.
  
  
• 40:06 – RMT Outperformed Three of Four EEG Measures in the Wharton Study: In the largest neuroscience study Wharton has ever conducted, Bill's context resonance system was the only statistically significant predictor of brain synchrony.
  
  
• 1:03:10 – Attention is a Red Herring - Persuasion is the Real KPI: Attention and emotion alone don't drive sales; what moves the needle is shifting brand perception to align with subconscious motivations.

 

Lydia (00:08)

Welcome back to the show, everyone. Do you guys want to hear something that'll change how you think about media spend? How one resident exposure beats multiple irrelevant ones. Who do we have on the show today, Olly

Olly (00:14)

Yeah, well, so today our guest is Bill Harvey. He is the CEO of RMT Labs. He's one of the godfathers of neuroscience. Really excited to have got him on the show. And Bill has spent about 50 years measuring how audiences actually behave rather than asking them what they think. He won an Emmy for his work in audience measurement, helped pioneer the use of machine learning in media before it even had a name.

And then consulted for companies including Fox. He's written two books on human consciousness and decision making. He's also this is interesting, he's the person in two thousand and six who disproved the industry's long held belief that you could never measure the sales effect of advertising.

 

Lydia (01:12)

Which is fascinating because that is what we're always being asked, right? Like how are we measuring the ROI? Yeah, of our marketing dollars. ⁓ what what I found really interesting was when you guys talked about the Wharton study at the University of Pennsylvania, last year they ran the largest study ever conducted, trying to answer the question of what actually happens in the brain during advertising and how does it differ?

Depending on where and how you watch. When Wharton built their own AI model to evaluate ad quality, it produced a predictive score of 4.6%. But when Bill's context resonance system was added around it, that score jumped to 76%. Which sounds like a complete game changer.

 

Olly (01:55)

Yeah, completely. And if you think this is cutting edge neuroscience research in advertising effectiveness. So it's it's really important stuff to listen to. And we get into why separating creative from media planning is costing brands more than they realised, why ninety five percent of decision making happens somewhere your focus groups will never reach. And attention as a KPI is a massive red herring and context alone can take a predictive model from near zero to an Order of magnitude better.

 

Lydia (02:25)

And at eighty-three, Bill is one of the sharpest thinkers working on this problem. this one's worth your full attention, which as Bill will tell you is not actually the point. So let's jump right into it. Here's Olly's conversation with Bill Harvey.

 

Olly (02:47)

Hello and welcome back to the Audience Connection. Today we have a really special guest, a really exciting episode. We have Bill Harvey, who is eighty-three years old. But when Bill was five, he was on stage performing with his mother, who was a Siegfeld Folly's showgirl, and his father, who was an orchestra leader. And he felt something on that day. And it's a state, and I'm sure a lot of our listeners will be able to relate to this state, but it's a state where everything became just effortless.

And he spent his entire life trying to understand that state and help other people to access it. Now, fifty years ago, Bill started measuring how audiences actually behave instead of asking them what they want. And just last year, one of the world's top business schools, Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania, ran the largest neuroscience study they've ever conducted and discovered that Bill's measurement system predicted brain synchrony better than their own brainwave data.

So welcome Bill Harvey ⁓ to the show and I'd love to unpack this with you and why on earth the marketing world hasn't caught up with it yet. ⁓ but Bill, ⁓ yeah, welcome to the Audience Connection.

 

Bill (03:58)

Thanks so much for having me here.

 

Olly (04:01)

First of All I'd like to dive straight into it, Bill. So when an advertiser comes to you to say optimise their media schedule, the first thing you ask for is the actual ad itself. And in fifty years, nobody has ever asked them that before. Why is that the wrong way around?

 

Bill (04:19)

Well, the you know, the the media part and the creative part have been divided since mm the nineteen eighties. ⁓ the agencies used to be called full service agencies and they did the whole thing. And at that time the idea of integrated marketing was a reality. Now it's just a catchphrase because it's all become disintegrated and the media people are doing their thing. So it's

You know, silos, bureaucracy, and all of the hazards ⁓ therefrom. So ⁓ when people have been doing media optimization, which I've been doing for a long time, they they leave out the creative as if these are two separate things. When actually th they're abstractions to the consumer, it's one experience. There's no separation between the media and the creative and the consumer's experience. It's all one thing.

Nevertheless, ⁓ based on the way the workflows and the actual business habits and that you know, that affects their perception of reality and from their lens, you could optimize media ignoring the creative.

 

Olly (05:33)

Exactly, and it's it's back to front. So the agencies brief you in on the Audience first, but that the the creative is the signal effectively, right?

 

Bill (05:42)

Exactly. Or, you know, to use a horrid ⁓ metaphor, it's, you know, if you're looking at an intercontinental ballistic missile, the media are the rocket and the payload is the creator.

 

Olly (05:54)

The other thing we talked about our discovery session and the other thing I'm holding up this book here, Mind Magic. And I loved this book because when I looked at the front cover, I was like, wow, this looks pretty cosmic. And ⁓ I was kind of you know, a little skeptical going into it. But what I found really fascinating was, you know, the the essentially it's it's a lot about getting underneath trying to ignore the noise, you know, and getting underneath and trying to understand

 

a a quietness, just quite meditative, you know, and a lot about meditation in there, which I thought was fantastic. But is that you know, the type of work that you're doing, this resonance media theory, does that connect with the work that you're doing in mind magic? It feels mind magic feels very personal. It's all about kind of accessing, you know, your your subconscious drive. And then and you know that higher consciousness. Are you doing that at scale with resonance media theory? How do the two connect?

 

Bill (06:47)

Well, i i it's an interesting question. ⁓ they they connect by ⁓ the characteristics of the mind being understood better. That you know, in the advertising industry they they briefly realized back in the nineteen sixties that motivation was the driver of all behavior.

 

Which is a psychological truism and had been known for a long time. And then they tried to operationalize it using things like focus groups, which weren't strong enough to do anything effective. Course they were asking people about what they wanted. So they were reaching the conscious mind, but ninety five percent of all decision making happens in the subconscious mind.

 

So ⁓ they they were tapping into five percent of the signal, ninety-five percent of the noise, ⁓ and and so it failed. And so they backed away from motivations and they replaced it with product benefits. They said, Okay, well what we can ask people about is when they buy toothpaste, do they care about decay prevention or tooth whitening or breath freshening and so on? So that was the replacement.

 

So they were again, they were still just dealing with the conscious mind. They were also getting, you know, ⁓ socially acceptable responses because it was questionnaire based. There was also fatigue because they use long questionnaires. And and for all of those reasons, they're getting a lot of noise and a little bit of signal, but they weren't tapping into people's motivations. They were far from doing that. So

 

When they write creative briefs, which are to direct the creative people to come up with the actual creative executions, the ads, those briefs have very rarely mentioned the word motivation. basically they talk about establishing ⁓ we want the people to know that this is ⁓ a brand that's going to save them money or it's going to

 

make them smell better or w w whatever it might be. But they're not driving to the heart of what a person might be attracted to the brand for or to the product category for. So ⁓ they they might be talking about ⁓ breath freshening where the deep underlying motivation is the desire for sexual experience. And that's why people wanna have, you know, a fresh breath.

 

⁓ or why some people want to have a fresh breath.

 

Olly (09:44)

'Cause you don't think about that rationally when you're brushing your teeth. You don't think this is, you know, for a a great sexual experience. You just think

 

Bill (09:51)

You know, in in this century, ⁓ Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for pointing out that people don't make rational decisions. Jerry Zoltman should have won a a Nobel Prize for pointing out the same thing in different ways. P. T. Barnum knew that a hundred years ago. ⁓ People aren't making rational decisions and and that's pretty obvious nowadays, you know, when you look at the world situation.

 

Olly (10:10)

Yeah. You know

 

Bill (10:20)

So the connection to mind magic is I was always trying to get underneath the stuff that had been put into my mind by other people to try to get to who are who am I and what do I feel about XYZ. So I started to think about what's underneath all of the noise in my mind to get to the the signal of who am I and w what am I trying to do and why am I here and what's this all about.

 

I was preparing myself for thinking more broadly about subjects in whatever field I might have been placed in. I enjoy enjoyed solving the problems that were coming forward and I was always going a little too far and bringing in stuff that people didn't want to deal with, so I had to learn how to balance that in order to keep getting a paycheck and so on. But then eventually ⁓ went out on my own. So

 

That's how I got to the really serendipitous discovery of these two hundred and sixty-five value signals. I wasn't setting out to get that to that. I was just trying to get people to be able to find the television programs that would really entertain them and, you know, inform them and inspire them. So I created a program recommender, and it was that recommender that found the underlying choice mechanism.

 

Olly (11:47)

And you, of won an Abby for this work, and it's been getting quite groundbreaking work. And ⁓ it still, you know, informs how we view today, really. Like it guides people to what they they they enjoy. ⁓ but let's I I think you know the story around how you you came about those 265 variables is fascinating, especially in a world of AI where everything is instantaneous. You were s you were messing around with AI in years ago, decades ago, really. And can you talk us through the story?

 

Of how you got from was it thirteen thousand psychological words initially and how you whittled that down to these two hundred and sixty five behaviour words essentially?

 

Bill (12:26)

Well, I I knew what I had to do was to code content, television programs, and there were at the time there were only about ten thousand shows on television that got a Nielsen rating that you could report. ⁓ interestingly enough, today when you look at the viewing data, even though we have thousands of choices, hundreds of thousands of choices,

 

At any given moment, eighty nine percent of all the viewing is to the top ten thousand shows on television.

 

Olly (13:02)

Yeah. I'm sure. Yeah, from my own behaviour I can see that, you know.

 

Bill (13:06)

So interesting. It hasn't really changed as much as we think it has. But at any rate, ⁓ I needed something I couldn't deal with thirteen thousand items. It had to be reduced. We came up with a method where we could test those ten thousand items in a national probability sample of ten thousand people. We'd only deal with like a hundred at a time to avoid fatigue.

 

And the the we asked a very simple question, which was, how well does this word describe you? And we gave them a six point scale, which was a scale called the semantic differential, that doesn't have any description of what's on each of the boxes in in the six point scale. It just has at at one end of the scale it had the word me, and at the other end it had not me. Right. So

 

You the word the first word is conceited. So somebody who was conceded might say, Well, I'm probably in the second box there from the right, and so on. So it was easy to do quickly. So you could go through a lot of words in a short time. So when we did that, we found that people clustered, a certain clusters of people formed based on the words they used to describe themselves. Other words ⁓ were more random and and

 

attached themselves peripherally to one of the clusters, but they weren't really central to it. So you could, using factor analysis, you could put a quantity on to what extent each word predicted the cluster that it was in. So you could find one word to be a proxy for the cluster. So in that way we reduced the list to 1,562 words, which was manageable, coded all the shows on television by those words.

 

Olly (15:00)

If self report is is unreliable and and asking questions come is in the rational brain, how did you avoid being misguided at that point? Is that because you're asking people how they identify or how how are you avoiding that in the questionnaire?

 

Bill (15:14)

Well, ⁓ we we weren't after valid data about who who they were. W what we were about was just to see what words do people use to describe themselves, even though they might be giving a completely wrong, fake you know, representation of who they are. They might be doing that consciously or unconsciously. Some people might be sloppy about it and not care.

 

Some people might be doing it, you know, with with great concentration to provide the most favorable image of themselves. Yeah. But none of none of that mattered to us. We just wanted to see which words clustered with other words. Okay. So that we could you know, so ⁓ it didn't matter so much to us whether the data were accurate or not or penetrating or not. But if we could have done it some other way, we would have. ⁓

 

people's subjective remarks came into our our our sphere of you know the work that we did. So this was at a time when the first new cable boxes and and satellite boxes were coming out where you could have five hundred channels. So they were called the digital hybrid analog set top boxes. and it was r roughly, you know, nineteen ninety three to the year two thousand.

 

when those boxes went from zero penetration to, you know, seventy percent penetration. So when we were out there, th these were the early adopters of those boxes, the first, you know, million people that that got those boxes. So I gave them a program recommender. And I thought it would be particularly useful to them because they had previously had only sixty eight channels. Now they had five hundred channels. They were gonna be missing stuff that

 

Later on they would say, gosh, I wish I knew that that was on. I missed that show, I would have at least recorded it on my VCR. My other reason was I thought if we could start by recommending T V shows and people saw that it worked, we could start to ask them about other things like what what's their vision of their happy ending to their life? What would they like their life to to be? You know, w wha what what are their goals and their their aspirations and their dreams?

 

And then we could bring them information, not just in video form, but we could send them emails to to give them information that might help them along their career path and so on. That part we never explained to the cable company, but that was the long-range plan. We launched it with experts in what was at that time considered to be the cutting edge of AI, which was known as a deductive object-oriented database. It was developed.

 

by the ⁓ the organization in France that corresponds to our NASA in the US. So ⁓ the chief technical officer of their NASA developed this and ⁓ we licensed it and he became a member of the organization of Next Century Media. At any rate, ⁓ we we had this at the time

 

Cutting edge ⁓ AI. And we were using it to ⁓ determine what program to recommend to people when they pressed the button on their remote control. If they didn't know what to watch, press the button and the recommender within a second would show on the screen the name of the program and the channel that it was on, so they could go right over to that channel and and see that show.

 

And ⁓ what we found was initially three percent of the people that we made the recommendation to became loyal viewers of the recommended show. And then we were also using machine learning, which by that point in time was pretty common. ⁓ and it it is a form of AI, and it was a pretty mature form of AI even back then. So we used machine learning to determine

 

Which of our fifteen hundred and sixty-two predictors were showing up in the adoption events where they adopted the program as as something they watched regularly? ⁓ and those predictors that were showing up in those adoption events were given automatically a higher weight in the prediction equation, and the other ones were given a lower weight. So as that machine learning set in.

 

The three percent adoption rate went up and up and up and it hit a peak at eighteen percent and it wouldn't go any higher. So I asked ⁓ our CTO, ⁓ well, how many of the fifteen hundred and sixty two variables are still standing and how many have been zeroed out? And the answer was there's only two hundred and sixty five that are left with non zero weights. Everything else has been zeroed out.

 

For years we called them driver tags. And then ⁓ Dr. Michael Platt from Wharton Neuroscience said, Bill, I think you ⁓ called them value signals. And I said, I like that. Is there a reason? He said, Yeah. He said, ⁓ in neuroeconomics, which is a field he helped create, ⁓ we know that within the brain, all choice behavior.

 

reduces to a single computation, whether you're choosing cookies or cars or you know, investments, or spouses. Whatever you're choosing, it's the same computation in the brain. And there are certain events that occur in the brain that we can measure, we can see them. ⁓ they're ⁓ they appear at certain places in the brain. The

 

Frontal cortex is always involved, but often other parts of the brain are also involved. And when we look at the number of these signals, ⁓ there are about between 250 and 300 of them. And we call them value signals. And we don't know any, you know, we give them numbers. We don't know what the subjective experience the person is having when value signal number 16 pops up in the brain.

 

Olly (21:40)

Yeah.

 

Bill (21:59)

We just know that it pops up in the brain. Okay. Kind of like putting numbers on asteroids, you know. ⁓ and we think that what you've got with your driver tags is the semantic and human subjective correspondent to the value signals and the neurological value signals. So you should call yours value signals. So we immediately changed the name to value signals because we hope he's right that

 

In fact, that's what we've stumbled upon.

 

Olly (22:32)

That's and then we'll come on to the the you know, it's that's the same Michael Platt that obviously is running this study in Wharton that then you you started to come together. So we'll come on to that in a second. But let me talk a bit more about how rmt works in practice. So say I send you an animatic or a script. What exactly are you analysing and and how do you run through these variables?

 

Bill (22:59)

So right now we use HI, human intelligence, and we're training AI to do it. It's gonna take a while. And ⁓ so the person, the coder, looks at the program or the ad or the website or the whatever the content might be. It could be creators, influencers, whatever whatever it is.

 

Olly (23:22)

So

 

can be absolutely anything because you know we've been working with Paul Zach on immersion and if he's measuring the oxytocin and dopamine being released, it needs to be a performance, right? You see that's how he's measuring it. You can't give a a script or you know, that the there's there's only so many ways you can do it, but it needs to be a performance. But you can just do it because there's these tags, you can do it on any piece of content.

 

Bill (23:43)

Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Including scripts and animatics, which turns out to be crucial because marketers are now producing the final creative days before air, you know, the the air date, which is not a problem for us because it it doesn't take, you know, a long time to code these ads. But then if we give them feedback about how to improve the ads or w where to pre place the media, they've already placed the media.

 

It's too late. So you you do have to do it on automatics and scripts and storyboards and so on. And ⁓ so the coder, generally though, with programs, for example, watches the show and gets the feelings of a viewer, has the normal human being viewer experience with the show. And so the feelings that are evoked by watching the show and typically in order to code a show, we watch three episodes.

 

The coder indicates whether this particular quality is in the show or not in the show.

 

And ⁓ when we did this in the ⁓ nineteen nineties, and we did it completely with automation, we got coefficients rather than binary yes no signals. And so the main reason we're doing the AI now is to move from a binary classification back into the original grayscale classification, which will be slightly more accurate.

 

⁓ it won't be tremendously more accurate because it's already so effective ⁓ in terms of producing ad produced sales results and ad-produced brand perception changes and brand equity, brand love changes, ⁓ and and brain synchrony changes. So it it doesn't have that much far to go, I don't think. But we'll see. ⁓ So that that's what happens. The HI

 

codes the ad, that's, you know, with an ad less than an hour, few minutes really. And ⁓ we then run the reports. The reports tell the client, the agency, what are the motivations in the ad, which is always to them, you know, really? What? And then we we break down the motivations, 15 motivations, into 87 need states.

 

And and they're very interested in that, although that's a bit overwhelming. ⁓ they kinda like things in low numbers. Fifteen is good, eighty seven is bad, but some people like the eighty. And then we we keep the two hundred and sixty five words hidden because, you know, ⁓ we've invested a lot of time and money in this and we wanna monetize it. And we have you know, I have a non profit that I I want to fuel ⁓ with money from this

 

Olly (26:30)

Yeah.

 

Bill (26:50)

practice so ⁓ we don't reveal what the value signals themselves are.

 

Olly (26:57)

Okay. And so by that you know, you're you're then shifting y those agencies are no longer dealing with demographics anymore. That kind of goes out the window. And you're just dealing with the psychology of your Audience and then they you know, sp spend their media accordingly once they find out that's psycho psychological profile.

 

Bill (27:15)

Well, you know, it ⁓

 

The the agencies have one angle and the advertisers have a different angle, ⁓ but they're similar. They're both trying to get the highest ⁓ ad sales effect and also branding effect. The immediate sales effect has become the dominant ⁓ motivation of the advertisers nowadays. Still in all, the long term health of the brand is not just measured by the people that actually converted

 

in in the short term, but it's really more dependent on the seeds that have been planted for future sales by moving people up towards w being willing to consider the brand where it was never even under consideration before. So that could be a much more gradual process for certain brands, you know, cars. You don't buy cars every week. You know, so certain things take longer. There's a purchase cycle.

 

the agencies now are moving from what used to be the lowest cost, you know, buying the cheapest cost per thousand was kind of what they were trying to do. Now they realize that no, it's a outcome based system now. So really it we're not totally replacing demographics or purchaser targets or the movable middle, which is something we helped push them to

 

toward in the early OOs, ⁓ what we're doing is we're combining it with these other ingredients. So we see it more as an ingredient than as a complete replacement.

 

Olly (28:59)

It's more in depth picture that you're kind of layering, yeah, together these different ⁓ results to to build that picture, I get that. ⁓ I guess w like from to move it grounded into a case study, do you have a a concrete example of where an advertiser has come to you and and then you've revealed these ⁓ you know, value signals and what they've done differently as a result? Is there anything you can talk about there?

 

Bill (29:24)

I can I I I can't necessarily name names, but ⁓ Fatih Karam was the the ⁓ senior VP of ⁓ marketing strategy at this company. So you could probably backtrack to find out which company it was. W one of the top five companies in the world in terms of advertising. Anyway, ⁓

 

He was the guy who said, Bill, you're the first guy in sixteen years who sat in that seat over there and said he could optimize the media for me, my media, and asked to see the creative. So we did this study and it showed, in fact, ⁓ a thirty-seven percent increase in purchase intent. He he he didn't want to do it on sales. He wanted to do it on branding measures. So

 

He said, So will you do the survey to measure the effect? I said, No, that would be judging our giving ourselves our own report card. We don't want that. You you should go to Millward Brown or somebody like that. So he came back and he said, Well Millward Brown's willing to do it. ⁓ it's gonna cost one hundred and sixty five grand and the sample size is only one hundred and sixty five people.

 

And I said, Well, they do really good work and ⁓ they're gonna be asking the right questions and interpreting it correctly. But he said, But yeah, but it sounds to me like I'd rather have a bigger sample size. So I connected him with a company called 605. They did twenty-three thousand. ⁓ s so ⁓ and it was the study usually when you do a study like that, you have to in the questionnaire you ask people

 

Well, were you watching television last night? And did you see an ad for a car sometime between nine and ten o'clock? And and it's very loosey-goosey in terms of commercial exposure. But 605 was using setup box data to measure the commercial exposure. So it was hard edged commercial exposure. The only thing that was fluffy was the payoff questions of what did it do to the person in terms of all the funnel levels. And at every funnel level,

 

There were double and triple digit increases where there was the ⁓ alignment between the ad and the context, the show that it was in. But that isn't what really impressed Fatih. Fatih said, Bill, this one slide you're showing me here is worth all the other slides combined. In fact, it's worth more. And I said, I think I understand what you mean. That was the slide that showed that.

 

People who only had an ex one exposure to the ad, a frequency of one, had significant increases in these measures because they were seen in a program that was resonant with the ad. And in the other group who saw that only got one exposure, there was no effect, which is what you'd expect in most cases. So he said.

 

What that means is I don't need as much frequency. If I have more resonance, I n l need less frequency, which means less irritation by the heavy viewers who are getting too much frequency and much less money.

 

Olly (32:52)

Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

 

Yeah. This is the the same thing that came across when talking to Paul Zach is like there's a lot of wasted spend going on, right? And if you kind of you focus on the neuroscience of it and the behavioral elements of it and the resonance, you you can actually save quite a bit. So let's ⁓ let's talk a little bit about this ⁓ this the the Wharton study. So in this is last year and they they at Wharton they ran the largest neuroscience study they've ever conducted, right? And it was kind of eighteen times bigger than

 

any study they'd done before. What were they measuring and why did Michael Platt ask to include RMT? And obviously we've had a a a a lead into this when you were talking about Michael previously, but yeah, t tell us the story about this Wharton study.

 

Bill (33:36)

So ⁓ Audrey Steele was the executive vice president of Fox for sixteen years, I think. Now she's become the president of RMT, but she was there. I have a consulting practice. Fox is still one of my consulting clients. That goes back eight years now. At any rate, ⁓ Audrey and I decided that we were gonna do a neuroscience study.

 

And she had done new neuroscience studies a long time ago with Carl Marcy and had been very happy with the results. And we had been concentrating on more like MMM market mix modeling type studies, but at scale for many years. And ⁓ so we decided let's do something different. Let's interview the various neuroscience companies and pick the best one that ⁓ will do the best job. So

 

We interviewed everybody. It took three months to talk to all of the the best people. And we picked Wharton. And the reason we picked them was they had done the most compelling job on comparing their measures against in market sales results. They you know, ⁓ others had done it, but they hadn't done it to the degree of convincing us that there's really a strong correlation between their measures.

 

And in market sales results. And the purpose of the study was really to measure what goes on in the brain during advertising and what are the differences between different television program types and different digital types. So we had YouTube in there, we had Facebook in there, we had viewing on TV sets, we had viewing on mobile phones.

 

We had viewing of streaming and and linear and cable, all the different types. And ⁓ very interesting results. What it showed for for YouTube, for example, was that essentially eighty percent of the time they weren't looking at the ad. They were looking at the skip button or something else around the So anyway, ⁓ the whole

 

point of the study was that television has more impact on the brain and and it did show that.

 

And then ⁓ Michael Platt said, I hear you and Audrey talking about this RMT stuff, you know, w what is that? And I said, told him what it was, and and I I asked him why he was interested. And he said, Well, it's getting harder and harder. We we we at Warden are not just in academia, we consider ourselves connected to industry and commerce that

 

The best data are the data that are used in commerce. Most academicians don't get to see that. You know, most academicians do studies of their own college students. And there's only so much you can do with that. And so ⁓ Wharton is very involved working with big advertisers and analyzing things for them, drug companies, not just about advertising and marketing, but about

 

Olly (36:40)

It was

 

Bill (37:04)

products, mental health, all kinds of subjects. And ⁓ in the marketing area though, it becomes harder, he said, to get people to use EEG, not so much because of the cost, although that that is a factor, but because of the speed. Everything is decisions are being made much faster now. It everything we get digit you know, people get digital data back in real time and they change their what they're doing in real time.

 

And that's where the market is going. And EEG doesn't fit into that, but it takes too long to get results.

 

Olly (37:41)

How long does take to get the the the information back when you're doing an EEG?

 

Bill (37:46)

Usually if it if it's a decent sized study, weeks. Right. And if you're doing eight hundred and forty or five hundred and forty is is what the study was, it took months to do it all. So at any rate, he said, so we're we've always been in the last couple of years looking for a proxy, something that could be highly predictive of EEG results, but could be fast. So

 

That's why we're interested in RMT if if it, you know, is anywhere near predictive of our EEG results. And he said, Don't get your hopes up. It's not going to be 'cause we

 

Olly (38:28)

With EEG, when you get the brain synchronicity, that's a very good indicator towards intent, right? Is that?

 

Bill (38:35)

Well what what what they found was that s the synchrony measure ⁓ has a ⁓ ninety one percent correlation within market sales increases. That's in multiple countries. They've tested that in. So a point nine one. And ⁓ generally speaking, you don't get ⁓ no there's nothing that you can do in pretesting an ad that comes anywhere near that.

 

You know, the people have been pre testing ads for a long time and you're happy if you get some kind of a relationship. Like the ARF in the attention level study found a point zero zero zero six ⁓ correlation with with sales effect. You know, very, very low. But and that's the the general experience. Sales results are very hard

 

Olly (39:24)

Okay. So yeah.

 

Bill (39:32)

to predict. At any rate, I mean back in the in the twentieth century there was a religion within the advertising business that we will never be able to measure the sales effect of advertising. I disproved that in two thousand six at TRA, which we then sold to Tebow. But ⁓ nowadays people know that you can ⁓ see the relationship between advertising and sales. It's just very, very hard to predict it accurately.

 

So anyway, ⁓ synchrony does do that, but it takes a long time and it costs a lot of money. So he said, so we're gonna test to see how well this predicts. Now, ⁓ I must say that there there are two types of ⁓ resonance measures that RMT produces. One type is the one we've been talking about all along so far today, which is the relationship between the psychological profile of the ad.

 

and the s psychological profile of the content. We also do matching of the psychological profile of the ad with the psychological profile of the person that we're reaching.

 

So in this work that we've done with Wharton so far, it's just the context, not the person. That we're just starting in that direction now with Wharton. So they did the study and they came back and they said, Well, it's better than we thought. W we we we thought and I thought too that we would be someplace south of the four EEG measures.

 

We wouldn't be in the middle of the pack of the EEG measures. So it turns out we beat three out of four of the EEG measures. ⁓ and that that was what blew our minds, mine too. I didn't expect to beat any of the EEG measures, but we beat three of them. And we're the according to ⁓ the paper that Michael and his team wrote, it's an academic paper, it says the only statistically significant predictor of EEG synchrony.

 

is RMT ad context resonance. 'Cause even their own EEG other EEG measures weren't statistically significant at point nine five ninety five percent confidence.

 

Olly (41:56)

So interesting. Like I I I went to this last month I went to ⁓ the a research lab in and Bristol where they're measuring E EEG when people are watching sci-fi films and then changing the edit accordingly. We were wearing heart ray monitor, ⁓ the EEG, you know, crown on the head to measure measure up our ⁓ you know the signals we're giving off. I I kind of understand how th the idea that the RMT can beat this.

 

I just don't know how it's possible. Like because if you're taking these brain waves that are are sort of giving off this synchronized feel, like are we that hardwired to our behaviour that that prediction i you know, is that it's kinda just by bleak that we are so predictable. Yeah. How how does it even how is it possible that it beats it?

 

Bill (42:44)

Well, part of it is due to ⁓ the inference engine i in the brain. And ⁓ Carl Friston is the ⁓ neuroscientist who's most associated with this idea of the brain having an inference engine. MindMagic actually talked about it in nineteen seventy six. I called it the robot. I knew that there was a part of me that was making automated decisions.

 

Sometimes they were bad decisions. And that's where I wanted my rational mind to stop doing that. But it I knew that this was a tendency. And for people who haven't been working on that process their whole lives, for most of us, we're an automatic pilot. And that's why it's so why we're so predictable. Once we all get hip to being more introspective and ⁓ being

 

really making use of free will, ⁓ will become less predictable and all of these tools, including probably RMT, will become less effective, but will be more effective. It'll be a good trade off. I long for that day.

 

Olly (43:57)

Yeah, yeah.

 

Yes, society will be better off when we're all meditating and more aware of what's going on, you know. That's yeah. And walk me through what happened when the result came back. So Michael, what if Michael realizes this? What is there a moment where he was like ⁓ this this RMT is is it'd d did he call you? What was the moment where when you realised that RMT was predicting this more accurately?

 

Bill (44:23)

Well he he sent back the data and it it blew all of our minds and and then

 

We wound up saying like we we have to go forward together with this. You know, there's gonna be a whole science to do to to understand here, 'cause what we're gonna have to do is we're gonna have to put people in FMRI machines. You know, that's where you get put in a tube. And and in the tube we're gonna have to have a video screen and we're gonna have to play videos for them in there and measure their FMRI while we're doing that.

 

Olly (44:51)

Yes.

 

Bill (45:02)

So that we can actually be sure that we're lining up with the neurological value signals. 'Cause you can't do all of that with the EEG, you can do a lot of it. So th this is gonna take some time. ⁓ and so we we signed a ten year partnership agreement.

 

Olly (45:20)

Okay.

 

Bill (45:21)

And now we're working on ⁓ developing patents together, you know, co-owned patents and ⁓ and we're looking at, you know, the there's a there's a range of benefits, including mental health benefits and and and helping society. And Wharton's very interested in in that. We are very aligned on on the social benefits as well as the commercial benefits. And ⁓

 

So they they then developed something on their own, ⁓ which they called the human being digital twin. And they didn't use a RMT. They they but they were inspired by the work that we were doing to create an AI that took all kinds of signals from the audio and video tracks of commercials, and they used the same commercials that we had used in our Fox study.

 

to train this AI. And what they were training it to do was to do what RMT does, you know, to to predict really, they they weren't looking at where to place the ad, just to how good an ad is this going to be? Is this going to be an ad that has a great effect or no effect? Or so more of an evaluative tool and and maybe also diagnostic to

 

figure out w how to make the ad better. So it was really more oriented to the creative than to the media. So it it's a little little different than what RMT does.

 

And so they wanted to see how good did it do in the marketplace. So they came back and they showed me the results. the R squared was a point zero four six, which is modest. But I said, What if you try to put the context effect around it, try to use RMT with it?

 

So they did, and it increased it f from point zero four six to point seven six. You know, more more than an order of magnitude. So then ⁓ we presented that, we co presented it at the Advertising Research Foundation annual event in in at the end of March, Audience Time Science. And Michael said, you know, obviously we're gonna go forward developing the digital twin together.

 

Olly (47:35)

Yeah.

 

Bill (47:54)

Course we need the RMT. In fact, you know, you creative shouldn't be judged on its own. It's always going to be seen in context. Context has an enormous impact on whether it's going to succeed or fail. So you can't really separate those things. So that's where we are now. We're working on both the RMT and on the digital twin.

 

Olly (48:02)

Context, yeah.

 

And is that is the digital twin what you're calling empath AI or is that a different title now or

 

Bill (48:19)

Well, empath AI has ⁓ a a a bigger scope. What we see empath AI is in coding ads, right now we use HI because AI is so bad at it. But if we want to do work for let's say YouTube, now YouTube has thirty billion videos. HI is not going to code thirty billion.

 

Olly (48:49)

Anyway, good luck.

 

Bill (48:50)

You

 

gotta you gotta have AI to code thirty billion videos. So if we wanna work with YouTube, we've gotta train AI to be decent, at least, usable ⁓ in ⁓ in doing that job. But i in accomplishing that, what we're gonna be accomplishing is we're gonna be training AI to do what's n nearly impossible, compute human feelings. Right now it can't do that. It tends to overestimate

 

Every feeling.

 

And it's got very little discrimination. You you don't really see the p the the differences, you know, that that person's feeling this and it's feeling that and it's not the case. So when we finally do get AI to be capable of computing human feelings, everyone in AI is gonna need that as a plug-in to their AI. You know, if if we're really gonna get robots to do stuff and and to to be help old people in their homes and so on.

 

They're gonna have to understand human feeling. So everybody's gonna need it. So MPAF AI is the plug-in that we would make available to everybody because everybody will need it.

 

Olly (49:54)

Course, yeah.

 

And I suppose you need it to be quite a positive human feeling. You know, if you completely clone human feelings directly, then, you know, there's all kinds of negative, you know, feelings in there as well. So you've got to you present the very best of humanity into AI rather than

 

Bill (50:19)

We are. Well, you know, part of that ⁓ goes back to I was consulting for the Army back US Army back in ⁓ the early eighties and later ⁓ this century for the Navy. And but in in the consulting for the Army, we were ⁓ we were at the ⁓ Army War College, which is like the graduate school from West Point. and

 

Olly (50:34)

U S Navy.

 

Bill (50:48)

We we presented this idea for a system in the helmets of soldiers, we called it samurai, which would be a feedback loop which would sense the person's feelings, including terror, panic, courage, sense of low self esteem, ⁓ all c you know, whatever, and would then whisper in the ear what you know

 

mind magic would say about that situation. You know, in the back of Mind Magic there's there's a section where you can look up what terrible feeling you have and then it takes you to page ninety three and that's here's how to deal with that. So it was mind magic turned into a a feedback. Yeah. So th they liked it, but they they didn't do it. but that's what would lie ahead, you know, I ideally would be a feedback loop.

 

Olly (51:27)

Yeah.

 

Mm.

 

Bill (51:50)

That would d detect feelings of worthlessness or envy or ⁓ you know, any kind of bad feelings and would attempt to alch you know, alchemy actually in Hermetic philosophy was about changing those negative feelings into positive feelings. It wasn't really about converting metallurgic but anyway,

 

Olly (52:16)

Finding the gold. Yeah. I can see how that would that would apply. ⁓ now I want to sort of ⁓ bring this back to our Audience and and you know the work we do at casual, the the what we've talked about just now sounds quite like fourteen five hundred, it sounds quite expensive. Okay. ⁓ I I'd love to talk a little bit around because you've done this for some smaller clients, haven't you? I think we talked about math tuition or

 

You know, th it doesn't have to be mega budget stuff when you're applying this. They're you know, if we wanted our Audience in internal comms or looking at applying this, you know, in in in more HR settings or you know, inside a brand, this could still apply, right? Absolutely.

 

Bill (53:02)

Yes. I mean the RMT part of the the thing is inexpensive compared to other methods. Other methods rely on getting a sample of people to do something, whether it's brainwaves or questionnaires, or you're buying data from somebody. Like people are selling their set top box data now, Comcast could be fifty million dollars a year to get Comcast set top box data.

 

Or if you want cercana's purchase data for a given brand, you know, i it could be six million dollars a year or RMT doesn't cost anything like that. You know, it's it's a very low cost method compared to other marketing methods.

 

Olly (53:47)

Yeah, so it's accessible and when you're thinking about an internal Audience within a brand, y you can understand how, you know, so you so if I think about practical application, you know, say we were producing a new employee value proposition film, we could come up with that creative, we could then run that through RMT and see which part of the organization that will resonate with and start to map clusters within the organization to really kind of bring them on board.

 

Bill (54:14)

Absolutely. Absolutely. And in Canada, we're partnering with a a non profit that is used by almost all marketers in Canada called Vividata. And Vividata corresponds to like in the US MRI is the closest correlate. ⁓ they do large questionnaire ask sixty thousand data points. ⁓ the sample size is like

 

45,000 respondents each wave, two waves a year. and RMT is now part of that. So anybody who's a Vivid Data subscriber can use whatever tool they're using. There are like three or four different companies, including Vivid Data themselves, that supply ⁓ self-service platforms. So you you can just go in and say, well, w what are the need states and the motivations of

 

my heavy user. So what about the people who are just occasional users? What about the people who use, let's say I'm L'Oreal, ⁓ what what about my competition, my Pantene competition? People who use both L'Oreal and Pantene. What are their need states and how's that different? And ⁓ how do I reach those people that have introspection as a need state

 

'Cause I have a commercial that's kind of about that and I I don't know, you know, where to place it. ⁓ so Vividata, which is also very modestly priced compared to, you know, the T V currency f ⁓ numerous, you know, it's much less expensive than numerous in Canada. And we're we're looking to do this ⁓ in in many countries, you know, we're we're in the US and Canada now.

 

⁓ but one of our partners, Samasio, which is now owned by Samba, is operating in seventy one countries. So we you know, we we expect to be operating in seventy one countries as soon as possible.

 

Olly (56:30)

Are we quite neurologically similar across cultures or is it it necessary kind of leveler in a way?

 

Bill (56:36)

Well, ⁓ you know, you talk to Michael Platt about that, he'll say, ⁓ the the human race is from a brain standpoint identical. C a culture doesn't affect it. It it's and he would also say that it's pretty constant across primates. He's done a lot of his work with other species and birds and and things have similar ⁓ pat brain patterns in terms of motivations.

 

of stimuli that relate to social status and and sexuality and and ⁓ and so on and so forth. So when you get down to the neurological level, we're we're not as differentiated as we seem to be on the surface.

 

Olly (57:22)

No, we like to think so though. And I think that leads quite nicely into our my next question. When we initially spoke, I was talking about how how difficult it can be to bring people on this journey to think about the subconscious and understand. And you you said ⁓ it's hard to get people to change their mental underwear, which I I loved. But what do you think the actual resistance is? Why are people why do people struggle to adopt this idea of of effectiveness?

 

Bill (57:50)

I think there's multiple reasons. I mean, I've I've had friends who tell me that they're frightened by what they are gonna discover when they find their true selves and they w they would rather not go there.

 

Olly (58:06)

Rather live in a bubble. Yeah, I get that. Yeah.

 

Bill (58:08)

Yeah.

 

⁓ like they they know who they are now. It may be their ego self. They they may know that they're egotistical. But it's all working. They've reached an equilibrium state where they're not unhappy with their lives. It's working out. Why screw with it? ⁓ but then there's other people who are miserably unhappy, but they're apathetic, they've given up. They don't believe in themselves.

 

They don't believe they're gonna be able to do it. And then they'll have one more thing to hate themselves for if they try to do it and fail, like these other people read your book and and now they're successful and ⁓ I read your book and I'm still not successful. If I knew I was I was not gonna be able to do it. So there there are different categories of of resistance. but I'd say that for the most part, people aren't aware.

 

You know, ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are not aware of my book, Mind Magic, and the new book out now called Powerful Mind. Powerful Mind is an attempt to be as stylistically different from mind magic as possible while conveying the same information. So mind magic, you know, kind of looks like poetry.

 

Olly (59:32)

Yes. Yeah. The way it's written, yeah.

 

Bill (59:35)

It's got kind of a sense of humor in there and it doesn't put a lot of context, like historical context, doesn't say this idea goes back to these roots and you may have come across this you know, in these other places, and these other popular writers have actually talked about it. Where powerful mind goes all the other direction to put context around the same ideas, make people more comfortable that it you know, it isn't so mystical.

 

It's kind of down to earth. It you know, cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, they exist. They overlap a lot. Some of these things I I find that some of the people who read my magic back in the seventies are now cognitive psychologists writing their own books. Right. You know, they wrote me back then and they said this is really good. This changed my life. And now they're writing books.

 

Olly (1:00:30)

And it has got a sort of cult status as well, hasn't it? Like it's been it's it's really kind of like there's there's a real following for for Mind Magic as well. I was reading even John Lennon, sort of wrote read it back in the day and and sort of, you know, always picking it up. So I do think it's it's got its its place and has helped a lot of people as well. ⁓ but I wanted to to steer more towards the the sort of more negative side of attention. And we've ended up in this this

 

Culture at the moment, you've you've called it this huge psychological operations machine and social media. And we had a guest on called Imram Rashid, ⁓ who talked about digital junk food and we are all driven by fear and and you know, the type of work that's being produced by these algorithms has driven us to a a really negative place. Can you talk a little bit about this sort of attention as a KPI situation that's got us into to where we are today?

 

Bill (1:01:25)

Well, you know, from the standpoint of classical advertising theory, attention was never the end game. Like David Ogilvy, half century ago, said I don't write my ads to get attention. If I wanted attention, I know exactly how easy that is. I put an ad in a magazine of a gorilla wearing a jock strap at would get attention.

 

For the conscious mind, it's a gatekeeper. Now modern neuroscience knows you don't even need the conscious mind in order for the ad to have an effect. An ad can have an effect subconsciously. If you're not looking at the screen, the audio track is going into your brain. It could be predisposing you to be more willing to consider the brand. But because there was a thing called viewability.

 

Attention all of a sudden had a new relevancy to the advertising business.

 

'Cause ⁓ when the mark when the Media Rating Council, the MRC, discovered not only that there was a lot of fraud in advertising and you know, bots pretending to be human beings, ⁓ there was also ads that ⁓ appeared on the page, but the page wasn't on the screen. So the ads weren't viewable.

 

So they created a standard of called viewability and

 

Olly (1:03:05)

Yeah.

 

Bill (1:03:07)

guy named Noah, forget his last name, created a thing called Moat, made a billion dollars because he could measure viewability. And so viewability became a thing. Well, viewability only takes you so far. What you really want to know is how many people are actually got their eyes on the ad.

 

Which, you know, has its own flaws, 'cause the eyes on the ad maybe is really not on the ad, it's on the skip button, you know, as we found. Or you could be looking right through the ad on the screen. You're thinking about as Paul Donato of the Advertising Research Foundation says, you could be thinking about the fact that you have a dentist appointment later in the day and you're not even seeing, just 'cause your eyes are pointing in that direction. Anyway, so attention

 

became a big thing for two reasons. One, viewability kind of gave it a layup, perfect opportunity to do a dunk. Yeah. And ⁓ billions of people suddenly were carrying around devices with cameras in them on their mobile phones where you could actually see where their eyes are pointing. Billions of people had that. So you put those two things together

 

All of a sudden the opportunity for attention becomes obvious to a thousand different, you know, garage startups and their VC backers. And so you have today, you know, there's 40-50 companies in the world are in the attention business. And of course, the big platforms have all kinds of technology and and

 

Walled garden information they don't share with anybody. So they jumped on it. So the whole industry jumped on it. And what they found, this is somewhat related to a a ⁓ a mean old nasty company that went out of business called Cambridge Analytica, you know, which helped

 

Olly (1:05:12)

Yes. Responsible

 

for quite a lot, I think, yeah.

 

Bill (1:05:16)

Yeah, you know, it the Brits leaving the EU. Little things like that.

 

Olly (1:05:23)

Yeah.

 

Bill (1:05:25)

So ⁓ there was this discovery by propaganda warfare specialists that you could use these same tools of social media for military and paramilitary purposes, political purposes, and you could also use it to make tons of money based on selling worthless or you know.

 

negatively impactful impressions that nobody would know that's negatively impactful. All you'd know is look how much attention we got. Look how much how many impressions we got that were viewable and attentive. And ⁓ so that was all exploited. And the ARF kind of ended that to some extent with their objective realizations, wake up industry attention

 

Isn't predicting sales effect. If you go back to classical advertising theory, if you go back to ⁓ you know, David Ogilvy, we knew all along that advertising didn't get sales effect or even branding effect based on pure attention. You needed more than that. You even needed more than emotion.

 

Emotion, like you could make people happy with a funny ad, that would have no sales effect. You need more than attention, you need more than emotion, you need persuasion. And what is persuasion? Persuasion is changing the perception of a brand so that it's more relevant to your subconscious motivations. When you do that, you get a sales effect and branding effect. But to do that, you have to either accidentally stumble on relevancy to motivations.

 

Or on purpose do that through a system that didn't exist until now called R and T.

 

Olly (1:07:19)

Yeah, I think y where you know, we've so we've interviewed a lot of neuroscientists and behavior scientists on this show. And, you know, we've got Paul Zach measuring immersion with wearables. We've got Christopher Demotrakost looking at kind of resonance profiles with, you know, and using cluster level. And Orlando Woods is talking about focusing on the right hemisphere instead of the left, you know, this left brain dominance that's going on.

 

Where how does RMT fit into all of that? Is it the connect d where where do you think there's anything missing from the work that they're doing? Or where d how does RMT sit within that that universe of our guests really?

 

Bill (1:07:56)

I'd I'd say you have to put them all together to have a holistic picture. They all have a piece of the truth. ⁓ And we only have a piece of the truth. It happens to be the most important piece.

 

Olly (1:08:07)

So it I want to sort of touch on from mind magic, the flow. We're in this sort of situation where we've got information overload. And when I was younger, I I grew up performing and playing music. And I completely understood when you talked about this idea of flow. Like I I got it immediately. I was like, I I know what that feels like. And I I have now young children.

 

Busy job. ⁓ it's become harder and harder. And I think, you know, you talk about how once you become quite flooded and overloaded, it's harder to access that flow state. Have you how are you how are you finding flow now at eighty three? Do you find that it's harder to access as you get older and there's more going on? There's obviously a lot going on in your life ⁓ now, but do you find it it gets progressively more difficult?

 

Bill (1:08:54)

The opposite. I'm I'm finding it ⁓ that I'm spending more time in flow now and it's because I'm not attached. I'm not attached to the success of RMT. It could succeed, it could fail. Not attached to the success of the books. They could reach a lot of people or not reach a lot of people. I'm just doing what I'm here to do. I'm ⁓ operating my gifts. These

 

The universe gave me these gifts. I'm using them, trying to do good with them, but if they don't have a good effect.

 

I it didn't it wasn't my fault that they didn't have a good effect. I'm doing the best I can. ⁓ so I'm enjoying it. And once you get into enjoying what you're doing, flow is the next it's a it's an inch away.

 

Olly (1:09:51)

I'd like to finish up with one question. We do this Audience of one question at the end of every single episode. There's an idea that when you're writing something, when you're communicating something, when you're creating something, you need to have one person in your mind when you're producing work. For you, who is that person that you have in your mind when you're creating something or working on something? Who are you trying to communicate to?

 

Bill (1:10:12)

Well,

 

it would have been ⁓ my parents a long time ago, ⁓ it would have been for some period of my teens, ⁓ a guy named Billy Heyer, who was kind of mentor ⁓ in my teenage years and a a large part of my young life. ⁓ it might have been F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

⁓ for decades. ⁓ nowadays it's my wife Lolita. It's it's because she's br brutally honest with me, and points out things that whenever I go overboard and ⁓ just let whatever words come out, come out because it pleases me. You know, I'm the one person that I'm speaking to. She says, well

 

For the rest of us, you should change this line here.

 

Olly (1:11:13)

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Makes it more easier to digest, I suppose, as well. Yeah. Well, look, thank you very much. That's been great to have you on. ⁓ we'll put links to your work in the show notes if anyone wants to find out more. ⁓ but yeah, it's been a really insightful discussion. And if anyone wants to explore RMT a bit further, then they should get in touch.

 

Bill (1:11:32)

Great. Thank you.

Olly (1:11:34)

Alright, speak soon. Thanks, Bill.

If this episode sparked something, curiosity, a new way of thinking, or something you're gonna take back to the team, we'd love to hear about it.

 

Lydia (1:11:46)

Absolutely. Make sure you're subscribed, leave us a rating, and drop us a comment. Tell us what's stuck and what you want us to explore next. We wanna know.

 

Olly (1:11:54)

This is the Audience Connection, sponsored by Casual, the video partner for global brands trying to build trust with their audiences. We'll see you next time.