In this episode of the Roundtable, I’m joined by Chuck Hester to discuss three topics:
— The role of print publications in the modern media mix.
— The notion that everything in PR can be measured, but not not everything should be measured (based on a post by Christopher S. Penn on the SHIFT Communications blog).
— The suggestion that LinkedIn could compete with Salesforce as a CRM tool.
Get this podcast:
- Download the MP3 file (33.0MB, 34:20)
- Read the transcript
- Get the show on iTunes
- Subscribe to FIR’s Media Bullseye Roundtable RSS feed
- Get the FIR app for your mobile device iPhone | Android | Windows
Please review the audio before quoting to confirm accuracy of this unverified transcript.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Hi, this is Chip Griffin from Custom Scoop with another episode of the Media Bullseye Roundtab CHIP GRIFFIN: le. I’m very pleased to have back at the table Chuck Hester. Welcome, Chuck.
CHUCK HESTER: Thanks, Chip. Appreciate it.
CHIP GRIFFIN: So before we jump into topics I will do my usual bit and let you take the microphone for any shameless self-promotion. I always have trouble saying that. You would think with as often as I say it on this podcast I would be better at it.
CHUCK HESTER: Well, we get the general idea though. You could just say ‘SSP’ and everybody would know what you’re talking about.
CHIP GRIFFIN: There you go. So take the SSP away.
CHUCK HESTER: Okay, right now I’m in pre-order on my new book, “Social Media for the Rest of Us: A Boomer’s Perspective’ and you can actually go to book.chuckhester.com. How easy is that? And take a look at that, and it should be out in January.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Well, that is very exciting. I can’t wait to see it. Even though I am not of the age demographic you are trying to hit, I’m not that far away. So I am curious to read it.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, absolutely. We’ve got a cool chapter in regards to the social media superstars over 50 including Paul Gillin and Shel Holtz and Ted Rubin and a couple of other people.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Well, fantastic. I’m sure it’ll be a great read.
CHUCK HESTER: Thank you.
CHIP GRIFFIN: So let’s- speaking of great reading, the first topic today is about print versus online. And this is something that’s been on my mind lately even before I saw this piece. Over the last week or so I just had a sudden urge to read more traditional media. I felt I was too immersed within the blog and social media sphere and not seeing enough from magazines, newspapers, and the like. So this sort of fit with my current worldview when I saw it, but it was some interesting research that was featured in Slate. And it was from a group of academics at the University of Oregon. So they took a look at the print edition and web edition readers of the New York Times, and what they found was that the print folks “remember significantly more news stories than online readers, that print readers remembered significantly more topics than online news readers, and that print readers remembered more main points of news stories.” When it came to recalling headlines, print and online readers finished in a draw. So basically everybody can remember headlines, but if you want the substance you should read it in print.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, and I have a tendency to agree with that. I’m still a print reader myself. Sunday paper for sure, I spend probably a couple hours on that including the crossword puzzle, which is just kind of one of my peccadillos if you will. And you know Entertainment Weekly. I really do enjoy print on that. But the interesting part about that is when you think about it the number of things that are competing with you for your attention in regards to online. So you can be online reading a blog and have 700 tabs open, and all of a sudden somebody dings you on Facebook or LinkedIn or wherever, and it removes your focus if you will. If you’re sitting with a newspaper and you’re good about it and you put your smartphone away, then you get a chance to really kind of read through the analysis or the article or whatever you may be looking at at the time.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, and the other thing I find when I’m reading online is I have a habit of using the trackpad on Mac to flip through the piece rather than if I was reading a newspaper or magazine. You may skim it, but you skim it fully with your eyes as opposed to having the physical element of the text moving at the same time. And for me I think that may be a contributing factor. Obviously we’re just speculating a little bit here as to the reasons they didn’t dive too deeply. It was a very small sample. I think it was forty-five people or something like that. In the world of academic validity, this is probably not all that high, but I think it’s an interesting for communicators to be thinking about because it’s become so easy for those of us in the PR space to say, ‘Great, we can get this published in so many online outlets that we can go back to our clients and have this whole long list of placements that we’ve had.’ And I think there’s not enough emphasis on the value of that print placement. Of course understanding that the demographics of those people who may read the print edition are probably slightly different.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, I would imagine skewed over- my nineteen-year-old I don’t think has read a newspaper except when it was required in history classes or whatever it may be or civics class. She’s of that generation that it really is the electronics that make the difference for you so it’s interesting to see. And you’re right, the number was about forty-five people. Not exactly the greatest focus group. But Chip I also hearken back to – and I’m sure you remember this – when USA Today first debuted way back when. I couldn’t give you the exact date. Everybody was so fascinated that all those stories- USA Today, their biggest selling point, if you will, was that every single story was on one page. You didn’t have to go to ‘continued on page 6’ or wherever it may be. And that’s how the term ‘MacPaper’ came about because it was just like small bites that people would read, and they were comfortable with it. And now it’s funny because USA Today’s competing now with online folks, and he mentions this here as well. I got distracted by the news quiz that was in Slate as well, so I had to come back to where I was reading. We do that. That’s the big issue that we come to is split focus and split energies.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, and I do liken the USA Today model, that not having to flip to find the continuation, that frankly always even pre-internet was one of my pet peeves with newspapers and particularly magazines where they’d have a feature story go on for three or four pages, and then all of a sudden it’d say ‘jump to page 78’. And then you’re flipping ahead and keeping one finger in there so you don’t lose your place. That was certainly inconvenient, so I did like the all in one place thing. I did think the USA Today pieces did, and I guess still do today, lack some of the substance that you find in other places because they didn’t really expand the amount of space on those single pages for the stories; they still sort of kept it in that same general size as if it were just the lead to the story and going to have a jump. That’s one of the things that I’ve found over this last week as I’ve been going into more of the traditional journalism that tends to be longer form these days. And the level of detail you get into, I think you end up learning more than in the skimmable content that we see so often on blogs and on online media sites.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, I definitely agree with that. And probably the best thing about this article was the last line: “By virtue of habit and culture a newspaper commands a different sort of respect, engagement, and focus from readers.” That’s significant. I love the long form pieces. I love the chance to really delve into a topic as opposed to the quick bites that you get. And sometimes, quite frankly, you miss some parts of the story that may have been misrepresented or skimmed over in such a way that you really don’t get a feel for the actual story itself.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Sort of going back to something we said earlier now, but I think it’s an entertaining point to end this topic on- one of the things I’ve been doing as I’ve been reading more of the traditional stuff is I’ve been reading mostly on my iPad. So it’s traditional stuff but on my iPad.
CHUCK HESTER: Sure.
CHIP GRIFFIN: One of the things that I’ve been reading more frequently over the last week or so is the Boston Globe. And the way their app works is it basically has images of their print edition that you page through, which sounds clunky at first, but I like the feel that it gives you. But one of the things that I’ve noticed as I’ve been flipping through it is compared to the paper editions of years ago, A) there are a whole lot less ads, and B) those ads really are targeted to a much older demographic. There are things in there for hearing aids and classes that typically retired people might take and these giant lounge recliner things that I haven’t seen anyone under seventy sit in.
CHUCK HESTER: My favorite is Parade because you see the Amish fireplace stove or whatever it is. How many people that you know buy one of those?
CHIP GRIFFIN: Not very many. Maybe that means you should take out some ads in newspapers for your book when it comes out. That might be a good mesh there.
CHUCK HESTER: Exactly. I’m reaching my demographic. Is that what you’re saying?
CHIP GRIFFIN: Well, yeah, as far as I know newspapers are basically giving ads away in print editions these days.
CHUCK HESTER: This is true.
CHIP GRIFFIN: It might be good ROI.
CHUCK HESTER: You’ve got a good point there, my friend.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Well, speaking of ROI, let’s jump into our next topic because that’s exactly the subject of it. It’s a post on the shift communications blog from Christopher Penn. Basically his headline is “Everything is Measurable PR,” and I want to read a couple of paragraphs of what he wrote because I think it really hones in on a point that’s very important for PR folks to consider.
CHUCK HESTER: Okay.
CHIP GRIFFIN: And so what he says is
“ΓÇªIf I get a small mention in the local newspaper about SHIFT Communications that doesnΓÇÖt have attribution, a clickstream, or a call to action, it would take an extensive research project to find out the true impact of that article. You could, in theory, go door to door and ask of every known subscriber to the newspaper whether they read the article, and if so, what they thought of it.
Doing so would be a project that would take days or weeks and thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish, but it is possible. However, the ROI of doing a $25,000 survey for what was effectively a minor mention is almost certainly negative, and deeply so. ItΓÇÖs not worth measuring ΓÇô but that doesnΓÇÖt mean it canΓÇÖt be measured.”
And I think is so important because I hear so many people these days say, “Well, you can’t measure the effect of social media. You can’t measure the impact of this blog post or whatever.” And the answer is, as Chris adequately says, is you can, you just have to pick and choose. And as we all think about measurements and all these piles of data that we do have access to, we need to be thinking carefully about what it is we want to measure and how we’re going to measure it.
CHUCK HESTER: Absolutely. And honestly that’s one of the things that when I work with my consulting clients on marketing plans we talk about that specifically is that we need a baseline. We need to be able to, as Chris mentions here, plan to measure, I guess is the best way to put it. So you need to have specific areas that you’re going to be measuring as you go along, whether it be a social media plan, media relations, whatever it may be. Because quite frankly, if we don’t have measurement then I don’t succeed and I don’t continue to be engaged with that client because at the end of the day, as much as Ted Rubin loves return on relationship, which is accurate, there’s still an ROI on everything including the fact that you’re paying dollars for public relations consulting or help.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, absolutely. But I do think there’s that sort of happy middle ground because there are some people who say ‘you shouldn’t do anything that you’re not going to measure,’ and that’s one of those things that just drives me bonkers. And I’m a huge fan of measurement. I love data. Anyone who knows me understands that. I run a company that helps people measure their media relations.
CHUCK HESTER: Exactly.
CHIP GRIFFIN: But at the same time there are some things that you will choose to do that you will also choose not to measure because you know you should be doing them, and as Chris says, the cost of actually measuring it would be too high. Look, most of the companies out there don’t have budgets to go out and do even brand recognition surveys. Just simple brand identification. ‘Do you know who we are?’ kind of things. Those are still pretty expensive for most companies to do so you really have to rely on the harder data that you can get. Things from your web site analytics or click tracking from your social media activities or the built in measurement within Twitter and Facebook. So you have to figure out what your universe of available data is, what your budget is, and then come up with a plan to measure from there because it does no good to sit there and say ‘I want to measure this’ if you can’t afford to, right?
CHUCK HESTER: Right. Well, exactly. I think a part of that too is the difference in measurement in that you can look at engagement and you can look at recognition, and they’re two totally different things, and Facebook is a good example. I can have 5,000 likes on a page for a particular company, but if nobody is commenting on or recommending or using the company’s products or services, then that engagement has failed. I’m fascinated by people who believe that when they come to me for instance and say ‘I want to increase my likes by eighty percent’ well, that’s great, but does that actually translate into sales and further brand recognition as you go along? Not necessarily. It really doesn’t have that happen. So you’re right, you really need to be able to pick and choose what you measure.
I will be a little counter-intuitive here and say that because of such organizations like Survey Monkey and the like there are ways to measure less expensively than there used to be so you don’t have to go out to have a marketing research firm do all of the work for you. A good marketing person/consultant can help with that. And the other part of that, the brand recognition surveys are stuff that I do for my clients on a regular basis. And as you said, ‘How do you know my brand? What do you think of the brand? What would you recommend?’ type of thing. Those are fairly simple to do these days and fairly inexpensive so it still needs to be done. But I guess the point on here, Chip, is this: you don’t want measurement and making sure that you are measuring it in the way of actual execution of strategies and tactics you have to get done.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I mean it’s all about balance, right? If you say measurement’s too hard to expense so I’m not going to do it at all that’s a mistake. But if you also say ‘I’m only going to do the things that I can measure concretely’ that’s a mistake, too. It’s really coming up with that right blend that works for your organization and what you’re trying to accomplish. All too often I do see people who fall back on the easy measurements – the likes and follows and ridiculous stuff like that – and it seems that some people have really built their entire communications programs on that. The thing that strikes me lately over the last probably six months or so are these radio stations on Facebook that are sharing all these viral videos. And a lot of them keep coming back over and over again. People say ‘this has been around for some time’ but for whatever reason these radio stations think that it’s a great idea to be sharing these things. I’m sure it builds the number of likes on their pages and all that sort of thing, but at the end of the day is that going to cause me to do anything with their advertisers? Because that’s how they’re going to make money is if I’m buying things from their advertisers. But chances are I just looked at their video, clicked like, and said, ‘hey, I’d love to see more of these videos.’
CHUCK HESTER: Right.
CHIP GRIFFIN: And maybe somewhere down the road they find a way to monetize that or maybe they already have, and I’m just ignorant of it. But I think it’s really trying to find ways to tie things together and understanding that even the smallest companies can measure it. You may not be as sophisticated as what Coke or Pepsi would do, but it’s still something that’s within reach. As you say, the tools have become a lot more affordable to use.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, absolutely. It makes a big difference. The radio stations fascinate me too because I’m not going to- KOST 103.5 in Los Angeles, for instance, does those on a regular basis. I don’t listen to KOST anymore because I’m here in Raleigh, North Carolina. But it’s just a case of I like their videos and the warm pay-it-forward type videos they put on it on occasion, but as you said, I’m not necessarily going to check them out on their website and then go to their advertisers. It doesn’t work that way.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I do want to go back to one point that you made though and talk to you a little bit about that. You talk about how tools like Survey Monkey make some of this research a lot more accessible, and I completely agree with that. These tools are a lot more affordable and do allow us to do things that fifteen or twenty years ago would have been prohibitively expensive. But I think one of the things people tend to overlook is the importance of having the right- you know, science is probably too strong a word – but the right thought process that goes into using some of these tools. Just because they’re easy doesn’t mean that anyone can just grab them and do an effective survey. And I’ve seen any number of surveys that purport to be scientifically significant but simply aren’t. So when you’re sitting there with clients and trying to figure out how to use some of these cost-effective tools, how do you balance out the accessibility of the tool with the importance of the thought process behind it?
CHUCK HESTER: Well, surveys has been one of my tactical tools, if you will, that I’ve used a long time in public relations. What we would do is say a survey on a particular subject that a client wants that I was able to access- aerospace engineers. So when a shuttle landed for the last time we went to aerospace engineers and asked them ‘What’s the future of space and what’s that going to look like?’ and in the process I was able to build a survey from that. And then from that comes the news release and then the news story and you go from there. But the bottom line are surveys. And it’s interesting, when I was a young PR lad back in- I found out that it’s not necessarily the question you ask but how you ask that question. So anybody can do a survey. There’s no doubt about it. Survey Monkey’s free. They can get on- there’s small pro editions as well. But unless you ask the question currently and in a sense fashion a question correctly then that becomes the issue. And that’s something that I bring to the party and other PR marketing consultants bring to the party is knowing how to ask the question and quite frankly without skewing the results, if you will. I can do that as well, but I don’t. But it really does make a difference as far as when you develop a survey, you’ve obviously got an angle in mind to a certain extent. But you’ve got to be able to ask a question in such a way that- for instance, it’s not open-ended. It doesn’t take them down a rabbit hole that they weren’t expecting to go or it’s too long or whatever it may be. So survey development. And like you said, I truly believe it is a science in and of itself and I’m nowhere near a scientist but able to do that type of thing on a regular basis for clients. It does make a difference.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I came from the world of politics so I have a lot of experience with developing survey questions that are designed for real research and those that are designed for later public release. And the way that you craft them is entirely different for the exactly the reasons you say. If you ask me to come up with survey data that supports – pick almost any position – I can come up with a question that will get you as close as humanly possible to supporting that. But when we’re talking about measurement in PR we really want that essence of the research and really want to understand is it working? Are we achieving our goals? And that is different, and it does require someone who has experience to help you with because if you’re just a normal business person, the questions that you write, the order you put them in, the way you word them is not going to be informed by understanding what’s worked and what hasn’t in the past. You may stumble across the right questions, but the odds are certainly stacked against you.
And the only other thing I’d add is I think it’s also important to understand when you’re talking about surveys who it is that you’re surveying because as important as the questions is making sure that both your target audience for your responses and the actual responses collected are representative of the audience that you’re trying to measure. And it’s in that scenario where people often slip. Because particularly when you’re talking b2b type things, which is where a lot of my experience is these days, you really need to make sure the decision makers are the ones responding. Because the way that they may respond could very well be different than the end user. And typically if you’re in b2b you want to know who’s going to be signing off on the purchase and what they think. But at the same time you may be trying to figure out what the prospect at a lower level thinks so you develop the product for them. So you really need to understand, I guess my point is, what it is that you’re trying to measure and zero in on those people as well.
CHUCK HESTER: Exactly. It’s easier but still complicated process, no doubt.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Absolutely. Speaking of zeroing in on people, I think that’s a great segue into our final topic. And I know this is a topic that’s not of any interest to you at all, but I’m going to force you into it.
CHUCK HESTER: Okay, just this once.
CHIP GRIFFIN: So this is a TechCrunch article, and the title is ‘Two World Colliding: How LinkedIn Could Take on Salesforce.’ And I know this is actually in all seriousness something that you are passionate about and have talked about before, so I think rather than me trying to recap the article I’d sort of hand it off to you and let you take this wherever you’d like to go with it.
CHUCK HESTER: Well, the interesting part about this is this is something in presentations I’ve done over the last seven years in regards to LinkedIn. And if your audience isn’t aware, I’m a LinkedIn maven. I do that on a regular basis, consulting on how to use LinkedIn for marketing. And one of the things that I mention in my presentation- there’s actually a bullet point in a slide and a conversation I have with my audience is basically that LinkedIn is the best social CRM in the world. There’s no doubt about that. Now basically this article talks about how LinkedIn could possibly be a good competitor for Salesforce, if you will. When I talk to audiences, a lot of them can be sales professionals, how to use LinkedIn for business development, and one of the things I do mention is the fact that this particular social platform, close to 330 million people now, is one of the largest and best social CRMs that you can have. And with the features that they’ve got inside of LinkedIn now, including notes, where did I meet this person, all of the things you can do with a profile as you go along, quite frankly, it is to a certain extent a Salesforce-like if you will, and it works just as well as far as I’m concerned. I have used Salesforce in the past, and I know how to use Salesforce. I’ve used them as CRMs. I stepped away from all of them when LinkedIn came around because they really honestly don’t have a database of contacts and people that I’m involved with other than my LinkedIn network that I’m involved with. And a side note really quickly, too- LinkedIn recently came out on their terms of service and user agreement and basically said ‘ you now have the opportunity to archive all of the data we’ve collected on your behalf on LinkedIn.’ So now I have my 14,000 connections in an Excel spreadsheet. Emails and titles, the whole nine yards available to me whenever I wanted. I prefer the online side of it better, but if that were ever to crash, I’ve still got it. Long story short, all of this, Chip, this is I think a really good article, and TechCrunch by the way is a LinkedIn proponent. Real quick, one quick sentence, here: “LinkedIn is the only company with┬áfairly clean┬áand┬áaccurate details on pretty much every contact that matters in the business world.”
And I mean, that’s accurately. Truly, honestly, you can slice and dice, as I like to say, the data that you wanted and be able to be in touch with the people that really make a difference for you. LinkedIn has three different areas of revenue: one is membership, the second one is a recruiting tool they use where they will charge for jobs and the like, and the third area is something that not a lot of people understand and know, but probably thirty, maybe twenty-five percent of their revenue right now comes from marketing intelligence and market intelligence. So if you come to me as LinkedIn and say, ‘I want all of Washington, D.C. marketing communications executives who used to go to the University of Southern California’ they can build that database for you on the spot. So it’s significantly powerful.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, and I agree. I’m a daily user of both LinkedIn and Salesforce. I would say that I really enjoy LinkedIn, and I would describe Salesforce as sort of a necessary evil. And ‘evil’ is a little strong, but it’s not as convenient to use as I would like. At the same time, I have a hard time seeing LinkedIn totally supplant Salesforce. I think LinkedIn is great for people who are doing solo sales or for people who are doing elephant hunting, big time business development. I think LinkedIn is great for that, and that’s sort of how I use it personally at least from a sales and marketing standpoint.
Salesforce though, if you’ve got teams of sales reps, if you’re doing large volumes of prospects, I don’t know. LinkedIn on it’s own, I’m not sure without reinventing Salesforce entirely that it really could supplant it there. I think this may be one of those cases where the headline is more catchy than the reality, but I do think, and I’m completely with you that LinkedIn has considerable power for- I mean, even if you are doing more volume sales, as an individual sales rep, you should be leveraging LinkedIn to learn about your prospect as you’re going through the sales process.
CHUCK HESTER: Oh, absolutely.
CHIP GRIFFIN: So using them in concert at a minimum is important. And I think probably for a lot of listeners to this show, people who run their own PR agencies and those sorts of things, LinkedIn might well do what they need to do from a Salesforce type standpoint. The biggest problem with LinkedIn today is it doesn’t give you a way to look at what your whole team is doing. And tie all those interactions together because thinking of Custom Scoop, which obviously I’m familiar with as it turns out, oftentimes there are multiple people within a company that are touching a prospect. So you really want to have everybody’s perspective on it in one place which LinkedIn doesn’t do and I think without a lot of rejiggering would have a hard time doing.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, and I used to work for iContact, and at one point in time that’s the email marketing software company. Salesforce kind of entertained the idea of potentially working with us. And we actually did an integration within iContact for Salesforce and vice versa. I could possibly see that. There are really, really intelligent people working at both Salesforce and LinkedIn. It would be smart to be able to say, ‘Look, instead of competing let’s see if we can integrate and figure out ways that we can possibly work together and get some type of integration going on.’ I would welcome that for the larger sales forces that I work with. And you’re right, there’s the ones that are the ‘how many phone calls today did you make or how many touches did you have today?’ in your prospect database. You want to be able to figure that out. And as you alluded to, at Custom Scoop for instance, if John was talking to Chuck, and Chip was talking to Chuck and Jennifer’s talking to Chuck, Chuck’s going to get pissed that there’s that many people talking to them. Or they’re talking on different levels, and we want to make sure that all that sales intelligence is in one place, and I think that’s what Salesforce really does do very well. At the same time, the market intelligence on- okay, Chip went to this university and therefore I’ve got a connection with him that way, that’s something with Salesforce you’d have to have a phone call or an email back and forth to figure out before you actually talk to that person. So the integration would be an interesting idea, Chip. I’d love to see that happen, and LinkedIn is very, very good in regard to doing that type of thing as is Salesforce. The interesting part about that is the ultimate integration obviously would be merger acquisition. I just don’t see that happening for either company as far as that goes. LinkedIn is on a trajectory as is Salesforce that really doesn’t allow for large company and large company to become a bigger company. I just don’t see that.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I would agree. I think at this point in both companies’ life cycles it’s unlikely. Obviously anything can happen down the road. I would be shocked if in the past that’s not something that was explored.
CHUCK HESTER: I’m sure it was.
CHIP GRIFFIN: In Silicon Valley pretty much everything gets explored at one point or another. Even outside of Silicon Valley I suppose everything gets explored.
CHUCK HESTER: Oh, of course.
CHIP GRIFFIN: And right now most of the integration between the two that you can click on a button in Salesforce to jump over to someone’s LinkedIn profile, but that’s not the true integration that I think you and I are really craving.
CHUCK HESTER: Yeah, absolutely. And it’s interesting because I did not check and see what Infer’s all about, but the gentleman who wrote this article is actually the CEO for Infer. And I don’t know if you’re familiar with that company or not, but it looks like it’s a predictive analytics company and data science, so I’m sure he would be interested in that type of integration as well.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I’m not familiar with them either. When I saw that it was a guest post I did try to figure out what his angle was, not that I’m a suspicious type or anything like that.
CHUCK HESTER: Oh yes, we all are, Chip. Come on.
CHIP GRIFFIN: But it doesn’t make the thinking any less provocative in thought and useful.
CHUCK HESTER: Well, and the end of the article, this is a quote:
“I would┬álove to see LinkedIn go on the offensive like Salesforce did against Siebel. It has the goods and is the most well positioned to pull off such a game-changing feat.”
And basically translate that, it’s him sitting in his armchair saying, ‘Go get ’em, guys. I want to see this fight.’ I want to see this happen one way or the other, and a battle that might occur. Great. But I’d love to see more integration as you mentioned. I think that’d be a killer app. It really honestly would if it’s a full integration with Salesforce.
CHIP GRIFFIN: I would agree with you, and that’s going to have to be the last word for today’s show. My guest today has been Chuck Hester. Chuck, thanks for joining us.
CHUCK HESTER: Absolutely. Anytime, Chip. You know that.
CHIP GRIFFIN: Yeah, I look forward to having you all back here listening next week.