Why CRM Needs an AI Revolution, with Day.ai Founder Christopher O’Donnell

29:08But they are actually pretty sticky. And people will try different ones, but have stuck with ours because of a few particular qualities of it and how it's integrated now into that deep received GRM stack. Principally though, we needed to capture that data. And we needed to be able to capture the raw data and massage it, transform it, kind of cook it, chop the wood, as we say, and use that to start to feed the CRM. So that, and then Gmail. And we had been doing Gmail in that first year too, which is, I wouldn't wish on anybody. It's hard, right? Google Calendar and Gmail ingestion is really tricky.

29:51And then we added Slack and continue to add data sources from there. But it was really July of 24 that we started on Core CRM. And the basic idea in what you said with the meeting recorder and Gmail and Slack is be present where your users are and ingest as much context and information as possible so that you can and sort of auto -populate or even auto -construct this year and that they need. Is that the basic idea? 100%. Peach and I have had this idea for a long time of the Spotify of sales. Yeah. You know, the idea of somebody who grew up with Spotify that you would choose a CD to buy. Yeah.

30:39And then that would be your CD. Yeah. And the ones that you prefer, you would keep in your car. So that of those eight discs, you could easily access them. And, you know, we all had the visors. Do you have one of those visors? Well, I had the thing that sat in the back seat, you know, the little binder full of discs that kind of sat on the floor in the back seat. Yes. Yeah, that's what I had. Yeah, exactly. I think this stuff is going to feel that ridiculous, you know, Dan Chan, one of our early users who you talk to. And I think he made this comment to you as well. Well, the next generation of people coming into the workforce, it's not going to be this idea of data entry is to cumbersome.

31:21They're going to look at these things and people are going to explain something like Salesforce to them. And they are going to think that they are on punked. You know, it's like, hold on a second. So I do these zooms and I do these emails, yeah, yeah. Okay. And then I like DM with my prospects when we do all this. Okay. Cool. And then I tell the computer all of that. Like I put that into the system. They're like, yep, right here. It's that button right there. And then there's a form. And you got to fill it out. You really have to fill it out. It's going to be completely insane to people. So back to the ingestion.

32:02If you're going to do that, you know, Spotify had to go out and do contracts to get access to all of the data. For us, that is binding to these inputs and their natural language inputs. It's plain text and then bringing in some of what we know about the CRM data model, even though as I've sort of hinted at it, under the covers looks totally different, you are going to want to be able to see a list of people and a list of companies. You're going to want to be able to add a column. If for no other reason, then inspecting it so that you can trust it, you know, you need to be able to do all of that.

32:46So that's all 100 % automatic. You know, folks come in, they sign up, they invite a couple of co -workers, they auth their Gmail, maybe they add the bot to Slack. and within half a day, you know, four hours, eight hours, the entire serum is built. Yeah. You know, context companies deals, tasks, everything. Deals is the interesting one, because you have to have this idea of like business process context. And that's kind of advanced mode, I think. You know, building company records, contact records, not that it's easy, but it's, you know, It's a lot of looking at the web. It's a lot of that type of thing.

33:30And you have domain and email address to work with. When you start to get into to -dos and opportunity management and all the rest of it, it's like, whoa, OK. Hold on a second. What does this mean? What does do -date mean? What is this stage in this pipeline mean? And so getting it right requires a lot of input from the user. And they may not show up having all of these answers. It's not like everybody shows up and says, the entrance criteria for our fourth stage of the business development partnership pipeline is the following, you know. They don't know. They don't know. And so you have to kind of get that metadata out of them and then use that as you're looking at all of this data and continually return to the data set as things change and reevaluate things, move a deal from one stage to another because a particular meeting happened where particular things were set.

34:22Like I said before, you need to show proof of why you did that. And then on top of all of that, the user has to be able to say, no, no, no, it should be over here. You know, let me weigh in on this or let me make a hard edit to this. And so it really is very, very different under the covers. Yeah, it's almost like self -driving CRM. It is self -driving CRM. And you know what we learned. You do know this. I know you know this. So that was kind of that arc from July through, then we got into automated opportunity stuff in November, and up through, you know, that I can't believe it was a month. Oh my God.

35:05So by December, what we were learning was full self -driving is too scary. Yeah. It's too scary. And so from new years to now, the big push for us, it's been getting that last 10 % of data quality for sure, avoiding false negatives on saying something's an opportunity, getting to do's right, we call them actions, getting actions right, but it's really more about this control and configurability layer and getting the balance of the best of both worlds, where okay, the data is right and I can also correct it. I can also understand why it is, what it is, and make sense of it. I can debug it. Sources and reasoning, right?

36:02A very simple example of this is perplexity. You know, if you do a search on perplexity, it'll show you the web pages that it's using to build the answer. And this now becomes kind of the core product challenge, I think, for all of these AI native apps across disciplines, is managing transparency and managing control as you are prompting and working with the LOM, being able to approve the output, being able to have rules and instructions about the outputs so that it sort of fits your standards. I think, yeah. on some level we're all in a similar game. Yeah, yeah, which all comes back to trust.

36:40You know, can you trust what the AI is doing on your behalf? Let's talk about building with AI a little bit. Can you share maybe some of the surprises or some of the magical moments along the way? Yeah, so I am a heavy personal user of the AI coding apps. I've tried, I can't say I've tried all of them because there are so many, but I'm regularly checking back in with most of them, I most heavily use cursor and have been pretty deep in that for over a year. These things are evolving incredibly quickly. Week by week they will have not just pros and cons and sort of ones ahead of the other in the horse race but they're dramatic movements.

37:31You know, one One week, wind surf will do something kind of cool, but people don't really like the pricing model. And then the next week, Kerser says, okay, well, here's a new way of doing rules management and system instructions that's way ahead of what anybody else is doing. But then a new model comes out and it responds to this stuff differently. And so it's like, oh, you actually shouldn't use any of that in these types of circumstances. So it's really a moving target. It's fascinating and thrilling to kind of watch. One of the things that's happening right now as we speak is that less context and less instruction layer in a lot of cases is better.

38:19And so apps that have less of that off the shelf, right? Like fewer features, fewer stuff going into particularly 3 .7sonnet. You get a better result for a lot of questions. And so, you have companies that have been adding all of these features to let you do all of these system instructions. And then it's like, whoa, how do we respond to this? So man, long days and nights for everybody working in that field. One interesting thing about that playing field, I will say, is that they are all working off of the same raw input. they are all able to look at a code base. And what's interesting for us is there's no code base.

39:04We have to create the code base, and then we have to do the kind of coding stuff on top of it, which is really interesting. Can you talk about how going from a world of software that executes things deterministically to a world of software that is in some ways deterministic and in some ways probabilistic. How does that change the arts of building software products? I will say that generally speaking, software engineers are not liking this. It's not the kind of curveball that they were hoping for, I think. I mean, and there are ways to kind of coax it into being more deterministic. So in terms of surviving the day to day and really making progress.

39:54A lot of stuff, you know, you turn down the temperature and you kind of say, okay, you know, especially when you're doing natural language, this structured output. But it's still non -deterministic. I think hallucinations are not nearly the problem that we would have thought a year ago. A year ago having this conversation, saying, well, this Chatchy PT thing is just saying some nonsense. What are we going to do about this? A lot of that's gone away in this type of use case. I can't obviously speak for every use case. But if you're saying, here's a whole Gmail conversation. Is this a promotional email?

40:33Is this a cold email? What's going on? Are there pending action items and so forth? There is an enormous amount of hallucination. You might get a slightly different result. And it is tough because there isn't a lot of tooling out there for non -deterministic stuff. I think from a venture perspective and so forth, the new generation of tooling is super interesting. For sure. Because this idea of eVAL and obviously a lot of people kind of in this race, but these are really interesting products that are really valuable to product builders like us that are going to do really well. So as that tooling maturers, that's another kind of tailwind to it But you know if nothing had changed from where things were a year ago It would be very very scary How have UX patterns evolved in a world of AI the UX patterns?

41:28I'll say a couple of things about one is consumer grade so We have talked in B2B SaaS for a long time about you know consumer grade And the truth is, what we meant was kind of a coat of paint, a design system, a big investment in information, architecture, and trying to arrange things in an intuitive way and so forth. We did not mean, you know, Facebook, Native mobile app, level, transitions, and auto scrolling, and you know, all this kind of stuff. And so the work that folks at Anthropic and Chatchy PT and Proplexity, you know, these types of companies, they're building consumer products. And the quality is extremely high.

42:19They are very well funded. They have the best engineers. A lot of those engineers are coming from social media and consumer apps. And so the level of polish is insanely high. which only in the last I would say month am I coming to fully appreciate because I'm matching up our stuff against You know what's out there and in the past when you've done that and kind of looked at what's out there and where the bar is You know you can get over the bar. Yeah, and B2B SAS You can do it. Maybe you need to invest more in design, you know Value it more give them more of a seat at the table Now it's a little different and things are going to need to be unbelievably fast, unbelievably smooth.

43:06So that's one. In terms of UX, the second thing I would say is control and transparency, balanced with automaticity, is the core tension. So if you ask a user, do you want all of this to be done automatically for you? Of course, they're going to say yes. When you do it automatically for them, they then have a lot of questions of why things are a certain way, what they can do about it. And there are a lot of levels in there. Do you want to let the user just flag something as a miss? Maybe not that valuable. I mean, everybody's doing that. But how often am I in Cloud Web saying thumbs down? It's never like a thumbs down in Claude Web.

43:58It's, you know, let me push you in this direction. Or let me, ah, you're missing this piece of context. Okay, yeah, let me paste this document and or whatever. Yeah. And so you have to be able to do that. You have to be able to manage the context that the system is using. You need to be able to undo, you know, and correct the data. So we have a document internally, definitely the definitely made, definitely Fonson. And it's called the rules of the game. And it outlines like, hey, anything we do, you have to see why the AI did what it did. You have to be able to override it as a person and know that you're overriding it, not have it flipped back.

44:42Because you'll run into that too. Oh, I moved this thing, you know, into this stage because, you know, I thought it was correct, but then the AI moved it back. Yeah. Okay. Well, what do you want? Do you want the AI to be able to continue the decision -making? After the user has weighed in, sometimes, not all the time. Again, the data model is sort of ridiculously involved to be able to give the user very basic things. Like, hey, if I say that, you know, the status on this thing is such and such, It needs to what update the status and never change it or take that piece of information into account For every status that it prints moving forward, you know in that case probably the latter So yeah, the UX patterns around control Progressive disclosure, you know, it's show me the clean shiny thing that's automatic, but then let me turn it around You know, let me flip the hood and see what really happened leading up to this And so I think that kind of modality is going to be really interesting.

45:48You mentioned the document that Gwen put together, which is a little bit of a glimpse into how the day the company works. Let's talk a little bit about day the company. And maybe starting with two things that are on my mind. One is, I think you guys are a very good example of this idea that a lot of people have talked about, which is you can just do a lot more with a smaller team. And particularly now that we're in a world of AI, you can do a lot more with a smaller team. Team is very small, but it's very high caliber people and you work extremely well together. The second thing, which is what I want to ask you about is I tend to be a big believer in office culture.

46:27You know, we, Sequoia, I've been back in the office since May of 2021. You know, we're five days a week, we think it works. You guys are not all in the office together, and yet you seem to have extremely good flow. And so I guess the thing I'm curious about is how do you achieve that? How do you get this small group of people in different corners of the country to come together and actually have extremely good flow? Yeah, no, it's a great question. And the spoiler is, I bet we'll end up in the office. Yeah. I bet we will. You know, fewer sites, I think fewer time zones is generally good. And we've been kind of letting the universe sort that out for us and it may be that the universe just sorts it out and that we end up in an office together in Boston.

47:15And going into that office, I think having had the experience that we're having now, the flow will be very different. Peachie wrote a really cool post on LinkedIn about the offsite that we had recently. And a couple of things about it, characteristics, that I think are emblematic of the way that we work in our company culture. Yeah. But it's really just the way that we work. And to your point, I would say they are very high caliber people. There's a little bit of a thing to these particular people in terms of their level of emotional intelligence, how much they like the work for the work's sake, the willingness for everybody to be so directly exposed to customers.

48:01Like, this is not all for everybody. I wouldn't stand on a soapbox and say, everybody should do this. But it works really well for us, and it's the kind of people that we want around. If an engineer never wants to reach out to a customer to verify that a bug is fixed, they're just not gonna have a ton of fun. You know what I mean? So that's a really important layer, is that the primary source material, it's kind of what we're trying to do with the product, right? And we use our product for this too. If you say, you know, oh, that's a great idea. That would kind of get us the thing for Dan. Yeah.

48:41Everybody knows what you're talking about and everybody's following along on the plot and seeing what you're synthesizing. So that's kind of an unwritten contract that we've all entered into, which is, you know, I am willing to hold an enormous amount of customer conversations in my head so that we can have these conversations. I find it makes it really fun. It makes it possible to come in and do a day of work where you feel like you've actually made a difference for somebody. Now it's software so making a difference for one person if you've chosen the right person. It's going to make a difference for a lot of people.

49:22And the team's nice. You know, and Daphne joined, I asked her a few days in how it was going. And she said, everybody's really nice. And that's part of it, too. I think part of that comes with seniority. It's the emotional intelligence part of it. It's the, you know, people are kind of here doing it for similar reasons. What would, I don't know if you've codified the company's values. If you have what are they? If you haven't, what would you say they are? for the people who are on the team, what's their lived experience of what the company cares about? Yeah, the lived experience is very truly customer driven in a literal sense.

50:01Yeah. You know, that our customers talk about the same hour bug fixes and same day feature releases. Yeah. It seems like the feedback cycle is incredibly fast. That's the font right there. Yeah. You know, if you're going to do something anyway and it's the right thing to do, you can do it right then and Get word of mouth and get momentum and and thanks somebody. I mean, this is early software This is early stage software people are investing their time and energy into this and we need to reciprocate You know, we need to show them that it's worth it if we do that it'll be really fun for them too And they'll feel like they're a part of something because they are a part of something and their feedback is creating this larger thing.

50:45It's one reason we've kept it a little bit on the smaller side because you can't do that forever with, you know, not even a certain volume of people because I think you can. I think you can do this with a very large volume of people. But once the product is at a certain maturity and once you've really nailed who those people are, you know, this last year and and a half has involved a lot of understanding, okay, what's this like for solopreneurs? There's a case to be made that we should try personal CRM or very small business founder CRM or that we should start with VCs because they're early adopters and boy, there's certainly willing to give it a try.

51:33And so we've kind of been updating ICP and doing that, staying focused on the people who we take the most seriously in terms of having strategic. Wait, it's easy to take those people very seriously and build a thing for them that hour because you are giving them credit for being right in a very macro sense, like you have it. There isn't a product management off site and sticky note sorting exercise to be doing around it. And it's like, you are the user, you know, you are correct. We will do the thing. And it happens to be really fun for them, which makes it fun for you. The other thing Peachy noticed about our offsite is we pull the work up.

52:23And I think the pithy answer to your question of how we've been getting by remotely, it's a lot of slack huddle. Yeah. It's a lot of slack huddle. Very low stakes. We don't have any recurring meetings. And when we get on Huddle, I'll get on Huddle with Gwen. We've had a bunch recently and we'll work for six hours. You know, and it's kind of magical to be able to do that. So there's a whole practice of pair programming. I actually don't know anything about it and in the body of knowledge, I should stop and probably read a book on it. But that is actually really great. You don't want to go out for a huge hike or mountain climbing thing by yourself for a number of reasons and Diving into do some of this data model stuff buddy system That's worked really well and I don't think that the gulf between the customer and the code Needs to be as wide as it is, you know, we're used to these sort of sanitorial trappings where you ultimately have go -to -market and and the R &D sort of as the Republicans and the Democrats.

53:34You know, and everything is some flavor of managing expectations for their front line people who are the voting base that have all the power and assess because it's right. And so there's a lot of distraction that comes with that. There's a lot of subtext, there's a lot of peeling it all back. Again, everybody having good intentions. Like everybody solving for the customer, like best possible case, you have this huge golf. And so we're trying to build and I would say at this point really have a culture where, you know, here's this question from a customer, here's a doc on it, we do a lot with docs.

54:12We do a lot with the written word. You can't compete with the clarity of the written word, I think. But pull the code up. You know, pull the code up. It's not like this secret back room thing for just the software engineers. Like, look at how things are labeled. Look at the conditionals of when we show that button and when we don't. Let's look at it together. It's not rocket science. Some of it's going to be pretty opaque if you show it at a company level. A lot of it isn't. A lot of it isn't. And so that lets us get to technical decision -making and polish a lot faster too. And again, it's kind of fun and rewarding.

54:53One more question that will jump into the lightning round. So one of the mantras that applies to some businesses, and I think it applies to a day in some ways, which I believe is stolen maybe from the Navy seals or some other branch of the military, is the idea that slow is smooth and smooth is fast. And you are anything but slow when it comes to working on the product, but you've resisted the temptation to juice the vanity metrics that a lot of startups feel pressure to juice. So definitely, your customers today are as much design partners as they are customers, and you've been very deliberate about crafting a product that meets a certain bar of excellence or a certain bar of quality before releasing it out into the world.

55:44And I guess the question is, Where did that strategy come from? Is it AI specific? Is it just the way you like to build products? What's sort of the philosophy behind the slowest smooth, smoothest fast strategy? It's not typically what I would do. Hmm. It's not. I like the Y -combinator wedge kind of thing. I like incremental improvement. I like broad customer exposure. with the exception of when you are doing software that is of a certain scope and stake that the investment that you need from somebody to get any feedback is very high. And the scope is also very wide. Part of it is I don't necessarily I really want the entire world to know how wide it is.

56:44But I guess they'll find out from this. You talked about the three main spaces. I mean, we're doing the entire CRM. Yeah. It's every function. A lot of surface area. AI native, everything, you know. It's probably gonna happen faster than people expect. Yeah. So doing things in that way, where we are trying to meet this bar with a particular customer. This is system of record software. You know, I don't know how Parker did rippling. I'm guessing he didn't say, let's launch Payroll in one state. Maybe he did. I'd actually be really, really curious to hear the story from him. If you're doing HR Payroll, you know, benefits, there is a level of completeness that you need to get to, you know, even be in the game.

57:35CRM has some of that. CRM, you can get a little bit cute with some use cases and say, OK, here's a meeting recorder, but there's a contact sidebar. And it has personal history and everything like that. And it's a CRM record and you're sort of a Trojan horseing in. So it's not what I would typically do. I think it's very appropriate for us now. And I also think that we're setting ourselves up for the very, very long term. The thought experiment of, you know, if you are in a race to a million error, how do you think about things? I'm just thinking about the Y -combinator which. Okay, and you say, all right, let me break your brain.

58:20You're in a race to 100 million error from zero. How do you think about things? You immediately start to think about things differently and you think, okay, well, we're going to need something that people just don't cancel. that has a certain ASP, a certain adoption pattern, and so forth. It doesn't force you out of the way of thinking, go to market, or SaaS, economics, or anything like that. So when you say, you're now in a race to 10 billion ARR from zero, and you have seven years, to beat the record, whatever. The record I looked it up, by the way, it's from what I can gather, bite dance, did it, and eight, I think Meta did it.

59:02That sounds about right. And nine or something, which is insane. But if you say you're in a race from zero to 10 billion error, now you think about things in an extremely different way. This needs to be that entire top level space. Every line of code needs to make every other line of code somehow more valuable. And so little patches and little feature things where you're doing it in a non -strategic way, you can't afford to do. That all goes away. And so, you know, if your number one feature request on meeting bot is output templates, because these other apps have output templates, maybe you resist doing it that way, because output templates are a core part of interacting with LLMs, and when you do output templates, you're gonna do output templates.

59:54And it's gonna be legit, and it's going to be proper and make sense and be a permanent thing. So soon, we're going to have this feature that people have been waiting for, having done it in that way. Right? You can't say, let's draft an email with this email editor and not be thinking about marketing email and knowledge base website, you know, internal wiki. You have to set yourself up to do things in that way as well. And that is kind of my style. Like I do like thinking that way, but that's the other big slow smooth smooths fast factor. All right, lightning round. All right. Who do you admire most in the world of AI?

1:00:39Sarah Gua. All right. I love it.

1:00:45Yeah, who do I admire most? I don't know, I think you already nailed it. Yeah, no, I know that. Sarah's incredible. other, she's extremely, extremely helpful. I will give a lot of credit to Dario for what felt for a long time like bubble wrapping his models so much for safety. You know, and I think we're starting to forget that narrative. You know, Claude was for a long time, unusably bubble wrapped. You know, you'd say, okay, now in the middle of this play, we're going to have this choreographed martial arts thing, and Claude would say, like, I'm done, I'm out, you know. And people on Reddit, everywhere, we're rolling their eyes and laughing.

1:01:38And this was before 3 .5 Sonnet. Yeah. When they really, like, said everybody's straight. And so you look at it today and using those models having grown up with them in the expectation of safety and ethics is incredibly important. Like we're doing so much for our customers automatically and they can say anything they want into this system and they could theoretically use it for any purpose. The fact that we can sleep at night knowing, a massive amount of that kind of ethical compliance is handled because we're using those particular models. I think it was courageous, you know, and I'm thankful to it.

1:02:24So I'd probably say him. That's a good one. One of the topics that's been debated, I think recently in the Twitter sphere and elsewhere, should designers know how to code? And I think you're well positioned to answer this because I almost think of you as an artist first and foremost. You know, crafting exactly the right experience for the person on the receiving end of the product. And so I think about you as coming toward engineering from very much a design and product blends should designers know how to code. I think the biggest change happening in product design, which as a field is radically changing, is writing.

1:03:01I think that's the biggest thing. I think that UX content, there's a big debate about whether that's a thing. It started to build these teams out Slack, upspot other places, it started building out these writer teams to get all of the brand and tone and voice and button text and everything right. That's correct in that that is a real discipline. However, I think that is a major part of the product designer's job going forward. Because, you know, 10 years ago, it was asking the designer in sketch probably back in the day or Photoshop or whatever to design a date picker. No one's gonna design a date picker right now, right?

1:03:40You're gonna use a component library, have a design system, that's a solved problem. Or like you shouldn't be doing software if you're not doing that. And so it frees up a lot of career bandwidth for designers and I think they're gonna need to adapt. So I think they're gonna need to get really good at content, you know, microcopy, flows, you know, moving over time. That's a weak spot for design, I think traditionally, it's kind of throughout time. And this is the consumer folks who are really good at this. So I think they're gonna have to get really good at interaction design as well. In terms of coding, I don't know.

1:04:16I mean, I don't know if anybody's gonna have to code. Outside of the world of AI, what is the most extraordinary product you have ever encountered? The most extraordinary product, honestly, is the August stove. Really? Absolutely. Tell us more. I mean, look, it may be a good example because it's completely functionalist. It is just a hunk of cast iron with a pilot light that keeps it hot. That's it. There are no moving parts at all in it. But what it does, the benefit to the user is create a sense of hearth in the home. And it has little features to it where if you have wet snow boots from, you know, your kids playing in puddles or whatever, it's meant for you to put those on the top of the stove.

1:05:15There's a place for that. It heats the home, you know? This idea that everybody kind of grabbed, however you lay your house out, everybody gravitates toward the kitchen. Well, the aga is always on, it's hot, you know? and it's immediately accessible. It has four ovens that are always on. And so you think about things differently and you cook oatmeal over 24 hours and you cook a chicken over 16 hours and you make a sandwich and then you melt the cheese on it for a guest. It's really kind of fun and cool. It's extremely safe for kids. So my kids are actually killer cooks and can make themselves whole meals.

1:05:55They cook meals for their grandparents and stuff at 10, 11 years old. So, and I like the example because there's nothing to it. Yeah. Yeah. Very cool. All right, last question. It's a Mount Rushmore question, and you can take it in one of two ways. Number one, who is on your Mount Rushmore of product people, or number two, who is on your Mount Rushmore of founders? It's a tough one because you have to walk the line of sycophancy, you know? And I think for me the answer is going to be the same. You know, the founders that are on any kind of Mount Rushmore. I'm not really in any place to make a Mount Rushmore at this point at all, but certainly Steve Jobs.

1:06:40Yep. He's complicated. I have an opportunity through a mutual friend of ours to be learning more about him and kind of how we interacted and what the experience was like for those around him. It's not a leadership style. I really want to emulate, but the result's pretty impressive and the engagement, I think, is really impressive. The trust of knowing what's best for the user. It's a little over my line. I still need to talk to people to figure out whether they like something or not, but Steve Jobs is up there. I'd put Paul English up there for some more reasons. I would, I would, because I think Paul, Boston guy, it's cool.

1:07:26You know, Paul left a long shadow. I'm not friends with Paul or anything. I've met him, I've hung out with him. He probably has no idea who I am, but he will after you listen to it. Yeah, well, I hope so, hey Paul. I hear you're great dude. The one time we hung out, you said some really brilliant stuff. The recruiting and the customer focus. I think that left a really long shadow. I hope he knows that, you know, the story of the really loud annoying phone in the middle of the room. I mean, our culture is some version of that. It's really just the extension, you know, down from that and the diaspora of that kind of value system.

1:08:05So there's that. And then also what the way he recruited and the way he talks about recruiting, I think is really understudied. And the idea that if you have the candidate, you have the right person. That's your only job. And you need to be in person with them with an offer letter within hours, not weeks. And I think that's another advantage that we can have culturally over larger companies is moving very quickly with amazing people. So he's up there. And then I'll throw in Rick Rubin. I mean, he's probably founder of, he probably has some production company or something, I don't know. But he's a really interesting guy because he's a Steve Jobs with a completely different vibe and a completely different level of humility, which I think is interesting.

1:08:52So Rick Rubin has produced probably half the records. We grew up liking and listening to. And he's in the studio to the question about designers knowing how to code. I mean, this is the greatest music producer, maybe of all time. It has no idea what any of the knobs or dials do. Doesn't know a single chord on the piano and trusts himself in his taste completely and totally. There are no focus groups or anything like that. So I'd put him up there. I put those three guys up there. We have room for one more. Sarah Blakely. Really? Yeah. 100%. I was just telling my daughter about this because my 10 -year -old daughter, She was dropping some science on me, man.

1:09:39She was saying, you know, what if we took maps in that quad thing you were showing me? And, you know, and she starts riffing on it. I almost texted you. So I was like, you should get in on this one early. But I was telling her about Sarah Blakely and the idea, I mean, very humble, very approachable, really inbound kind of leader with a really positive message. But she just did it, man. She just did it and she had a belief. You know, women's undergarments should not be designed by men who knew nothing about it. Like, that is, okay, great. You were a billionaire, you know? And she's done a lot of good with it.

1:10:23So I put her up there as well. That's right, there are four on the knot. Right there. You got there too. Awesome. Christopher, thank you for coming on the show. All right, thanks for having me. Good to see you.