Advertising influences our decisions and shapes our perceptions of the world around us. Thus, we must be aware of fair and inclusive advertising practices. In this episode, we hear more from Chloe Nwangwu, widely known as the brand scientist and the director of NobiWorks, a brand awareness consultancy supporting under-recognized social impact brands with methods driven by brain science. Listen in as we unpack her concept of bias in advertising, how to recognize it and how to mitigate it in your marketing programs.
What is bias in advertising?
Chloe Nwangwu: So this is a good question. And I might sort of zoom out and say that when I talk about bias, I'm talking specifically about a category of biases. I call them visibility biases. But essentially, they are just the subset of cognitive biases or learned brain chemistry in our head that talk about the different ways in which we've all been conditioned to overlook certain kinds of people and experiences. And so advertising and marketing and brand work, all of that is really focused on getting attention for the brand, leveraging that attention in specific ways, and then transforming it into whatever it is our clients need, whether or not that's more clients, more money. If we're working with someone in a different industry, it might look different. And so if there is this invisible curtain almost out there where folks will look past a certain kind of brand or a certain kind of person, but our tools haven't yet adapted to that curtain being there, then we're kind of in trouble, aren't we? Our tools don't work the same for everybody as a result.
Reid Carr: Well, so actually let's just zoom in on the idea of tools. Now, when you talk about tools, what are you talking about in terms of from a marketer's perspective? Because I don't think we're talking about technical tools here.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah. No, not technical tools. And apologies because this is going to sound like sacrilege.
Reid Carr: Not at all. No, you got to go there.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, I'm going to go there. But the usual thing that we talk about, like ideal client avatars, niche-ing, dare I say, these are two sort of tools or tactics in particular that folks who are familiar with my work have heard me sort of lambast and lay into for reasons. But these are two really good examples of tools and tactics and things that we use in order to do our jobs that don't account for visibility biases, and the ways in which we don't all have the same level of, I might call it resting attention. So that's kind of the mistake that we make, that we assume that everybody has the same level of attention just foisted upon them. And sure, there might be deviations because of environmental stuff, but generally it's all kind of level. Turns out that's not the case.
And so when we use tools like the ICA (Ideal Customer Avatar), we will ignore the kinds of stakeholders that people who are dealing with visibility biases or folks who are behind that curtain need to be aware of. So I will often work with, I call them under-recognized brands or hidden figures, that sort of thing, who the work that they've done before, they have their very detailed ICA, they have their customer journey, they have all these things set up. And because I know what the science is telling me about how visibility biases affect the way attention falls on them or is allocated towards them rather, I know that no, you also have to be aware of the gatekeepers. There are going to be gatekeepers that you need to get through in order to unlock attention for you. And there's specific kinds of gatekeepers. There are going to be... Gosh, I think I've documented at this point at least five other stakeholders aside from the ideal customer, that folks who are under-recognized need to be as aware of, if not more aware of, than they are of their ideal customer in order for attention to work for them the way that it works for other folks.
And we talked about this briefly, I think, but then there's the thing that I find mildly ridiculous, just the increasingly absurd level of detail that we're starting to have in our ideal client avatars and profiles and that sort of thing. Like her favorite drink is grapefruit seltzer. No, it's so... Enough. We don't need that. Sure, does that information add flavor to maybe the creative that you might develop at some point? Sure, maybe. But ultimately, what I'm finding is that as folks who are in the business of building brands, communicating brands, putting them out in the world, as folks who are in the business of that, really we're in the business of behavior change. And knowing someone's favorite flavor of drink is not going to give you the information you need to change their behavior. But what will is their motivations and the motivational drivers that generate those motivations. And those are the kinds of things that I tend to pay attention to when I am picking out the various stakeholders that my clients should be aware of and the information that my client should have on those stakeholders.
Reid Carr: So, there's about three things I want to dig into on this, which is one, we talked about the tools. So what you're saying is obviously tools that we're using may not be relevant, they may be broken, they be me missing people, or we might be adding things to them that don't need to be there. So are you suggesting that there are new tools or do we need to adjust the tools that we already have or reshape the whole system?
Chloe Nwangwu: So honestly, it's kind of a yes-and. A lot of my work ends up being sort of testing and developing new tactics and strategies and tools and that sort of thing, but also just tweaking and adjusting some of the things that we already have, and like, no, this is not terrible. It's just missing a few things. So a good example might be... Well, we could return to the idea of ICAs. Instead of ICAs, what I do is something called a stakeholder spectrum. And I think I showed you all and the folks at Red Door what this looks like. And I'm sure I've written about this somewhere, so we can probably include a link.
Reid Carr: Yeah, we can find a link to it.
Chloe Nwangwu: We can find a link to it. But a stakeholder spectrum is essentially, imagine that you have a literal spectrum, there are two endpoints, and you are measuring just relevant information. Something that I tend to measure is receptivity, for example. So one end of the spectrum is the most receptive. Another end of the spectrum is the least receptive. And then in the middle, it's middling receptivity. And then what you do is you look at those three points of that spectrum and you say, "Okay, what stakeholder, who in just our universe relevant to our work, who is the most receptive to our work and the way in which we're doing it? Who's the least receptive? And who's somewhere in the middle? And why?" That is a stakeholder spectrum. And I tend to do at least three of these. Receptivity is one that I always do. But the other two will depend on your vertical, your client, a bunch of things.
And what this allows you to do is not only are you going to capture all the stakeholders that your client needs to be aware of, but you're capturing all the stakeholders that you didn't even know to be aware of. And that's the thing. A great example, a friend told me a story of this... I don't know what this place was selling, but it showed up in a Brooklyn analog somewhere. And it was one of those very cool hipstery stores, and you pay with your phone. It's kind of what we've come to expect in some places. And their ideal client avatar loved this. This was right up their alley. We hailed this place as the second coming because they let us pay with our phones. But the people who actually lived in that neighborhood did not love this, largely because the phones and the technology that they had didn't allow them to participate. They couldn't pay with their phones because they didn't have the required tech in their phones at the time. And that's a mistake. That's a gap. That's a common occurrence when you're doing ICAs. But that's not something you're going to miss when you're doing a stakeholder spectrum.
Reid Carr: Yeah. And you're talking about the brand's overall experience in that case too, because how you buy certainly reflects what this brand stands for. Whereas what we're communicating externally and try to get them to that store might be different. And we might do that part right, but then maybe as we go down that path, kind of really make the miss. Which is what is interesting is because then when you're talking about the irrelevance of what kind of soda they drink or whatever, there is a helpfulness I understand of getting it down to someone someone can picture and go, "Okay, now how would this person go through that process?" But that's, to me, based on what we're talking about too, is who does that make you picture when you put it down in those terms? And is that the right person? And where do they fit on that spectrum?
Chloe Nwangwu: Exactly.
Reid Carr: So forcing you to go through this thought process starts to open you up to what you're talking about too is this is what marketers want, expanding the customers that ultimately buy from them. Because they don't always want to get down to people who... We want to broaden our audience in such a degree that no one cares,
Chloe Nwangwu: Right. Right. Of course not.
Reid Carr: But they also want to say, "Hey, there are certain things that matter to everyone and here's what consistent, and here are things that might turn certain people off, "that where your product might be a great product for them, you've just turned them off because of how you communicate, how you target and so on.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, exactly. And this is one of the reasons that I love the sort of stakeholder analysis that I do with the spectrums and the fact that it is motivationally focused. Because all kinds of people can have the same motivations and the same motivational drivers that generate those motivations. Like me, a Black woman in her thirties, I can have the same motivations as baby Yoda. But we are not demographically the same at all. Psycho-graphically, we're probably not the same. We would not fall into anybody's version of a sensible segment. But we would still have the same motivations. We still have the same drivers. So that product would still be good for us. And that's just a huge missed opportunity.
What effect does a wrong stakeholder analysis have on consumers? And what's the advantage if we do it right?
Reid Carr: Yeah, we're talking about the different personas that each of us have as a business owner, as an athlete, as somebody who's a runner. There's these commonalities that work. And so the other part, kind of the third part, that I want to get into, inspired by the first thing you were talking about too, is now we're talking about the benefits to the brand and to the marketer about if we do this, it expands our audience and welcomes more people. What's the benefit to the other side of this, the consumer? If we do this right, if a brand does this right, or I should say probably more importantly, many brands or ideally everyone does this, what's the advantage? How does it affect consumers if we're doing it wrong? And what's the advantage if we do it right?
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah. So this is a really interesting question because I think about this at two different levels. There's the sort of purely mundane maybe I would say, or commercial level, where more people will feel included. More people will feel like, "Oh yes, this thing is also for me." I think about it at that level. But then I'm also thinking of it at a sort of meta level. And that meta level involves this... I don't know if you've noticed, but things feel really polarizing right now.
Reid Carr: Call it a little tense.
Chloe Nwangwu: I don't know. Weirdly, people aren't really talking to each other, but it could just be me. I don't know. Maybe I'm imagining it. And this is a direct consequence... And I'm coming for some people's throats here and I'm sorry in advance. But this is a direct consequence of the usual approach to marketing, to advertising especially, where we want people in homogenous segments because they are easier, air quotes, to market to. It's not necessarily true. But what is true is that they're easier to manipulate. That is something that is true. And that's something that the science bears out. You look at network science, it's going to show you that. And so because they're easier to manipulate, and... How do I put this gently?
Reid Carr: There's no need for gently. We're in a podcast environment. If someone doesn't want to hear it, they can turn it off.
Chloe Nwangwu: That's fair. That's so fair. No, you're right. You're right. No, you're right. You're totally right. So what I would say is this, that a lot of our peers have noticed that attention is harder to garner these days. And that is a trend that is going to continue. The attention economy is super freaking crowded. There's never been as much data or content or stuff for us to pay attention to at any other point in history as there is right now. And that number is going to continue to rise exponentially, especially with the, I'll say the advent of big data, but we all know that that's been around for a while.
Reid Carr: Although I will challenge you on that, though, in the sense that big data's been around, but I think our ability to use it has accelerated dramatically in the last few years, and the automation of how it's used in the sense that it's not even a person necessarily putting it into action. And some of those, to me, some of that systemic bias comes from how this stuff has been built.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yes. Yes. Absolutely true. And that's literally another podcast episode. I can't even get into that right now. That's a whole other episode.
Reid Carr: In the next episode, we'll be...
Chloe Nwangwu: Then add to that the fact that we're coming out of a pandemic. And I always say this in air quotes, because coming out of a pandemic, this is a weird, awkward, mid-haircut phase. It's not quite grown out so it looks good.
Reid Carr: Growing out the bangs?
Chloe Nwangwu: Exactly. That's the kind of phase we're in right now. We're still trying to figure out what the pandemic did to our brains essentially. But what we do know is that the periods of economic instability that we've dealt with over the last decade has done crazy stuff to our brains where our executive functioning has been hit. And if it hasn't been hit yet, it will be hit down the line. And then on top of that with COVID, we just spent the last few years looking for threats in our environment, constantly vigilant, trying to keep ourselves and our families safe. And so all of those things means that our brains' filters are in overdrive. They are filtering within an inch of their lives. They're being very judicious. Because there are things that are like if we don't pay attention to them, we won't survive. And then there's everything else.
And so all of this is happening in the attention economy. And then that means that folks like us are looking, and our usual stuff that used to work is just not working as well anymore. And so we have seen or learned that it's super easy just to be bombastic and super sensationalist and whatever else you want to call it, in these silos, in these segments, in these echo chambers. Because A, those silos are easier to manipulate. B, if you are bombastic in that way, chances are like you'll get that hit of attention. And then C, because it's an echo chamber, you're more likely to solidify those segments. Those segments are going to become more entrenched. And so, that's what we're seeing happening over time with all of these different segments.
And so this is a super long way of answering your question of if as many brands as possible are not doing the easy thing, and instead are doing the thing that is as effective, maybe even more effective, but just takes a little bit of work to figure out, what that means is that those silos that are easy to manipulate and where really ugly stuff can breed and has been being bred, those silos start to come down, or at the very least, they look different. And that means a whole host of things for the consumer in terms of their lives, the kinds of conversations they're able to have, the kind of relationships that they're able to have, the people who are in their lives, the folks that they're able to care about. It means a lot of things on a really big scale. So yeah, that's a super long way of answering your question. That probably got to places I was not expecting to go, but here we are.
How do you balance sustainability and getting people in the door?
Reid Carr: Here we are. Well, here we are to the next question that I have that connects a bit. Because you're bringing up the idea of attention, I think in the background of all of this stuff is we are all these commercial entities that they produce product, sell product, and ultimately you have to make money, knowing that attention is a leading indicator, perhaps, to a sale, which I think what I just absorbed from you here is the idea that there's kind of this short term quick hit, use of attention just to get someone in the door. But the longer term and probably better and more sustainable version is actually rather than trying to get attention and interrupt people in that way, I think what I'm hearing is if we really are creating our products and services for the spectrum of our audience and respecting them, and then presenting these things in a positive and trying to be useful, trying to say, "Hey, this is something I think is going to make your life better," because ultimately we still do have to get in front of people. If they don't know you exist, you fundamentally won't exist.
So I just want to separate those two things, is to recognize that for those that are listening to us, that we got to get past that attention point. So you were talking about that, using this from a sustainability standpoint. Because man, if they just focus on sustainability and don't get people in the door, which is usually about attention, so how do you get to that tipping point where ultimately someone's listening, that's all well and good, but I got to get people in the door?
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what I would say is this, I always describe the sort of process that we're talking about right now in three parts. We gain attention, we maintain attention, and then we translate that attention. And so when we're in the sort of how do we gain attention in a way that's not poisonous and contributing to the greater ills of society, then we can get into some of the really interesting stuff that brand science has to say about impression management, for one. One of my favorite things that I take away from that is, okay, well, when you are developing creative or branding around a brand, you want to be industry aware, but distinct.
So what I mean by that is you want to look like you belong to the industry, whatever that happens to mean, it's going to take a little bit of research to understand that, but you want to be distinct still. And what that means, again, is going to depend on the industry. And the balance of industry aware or looking you belong to your industry to distinct is also going to depend on what the goals of the brand are. But one, you want to hit that balance in terms of impression management. And you could use semiotic analysis to figure out what different visual cues and things mean to people. There's a whole field of study over here that I could talk for ages about, which is one of my favorite parts of being a brand scientist. So that's one thing.
I think the other thing is, I think speaking to the motivation does a lot of that heavy lifting for you actually. And if your stakeholder analysis is good enough, and by good enough, I mean that you are aware of all of the relevant drivers that are leading to this motivation, then I think the capturing or gaining attention piece actually becomes a lot easier. It's mostly okay, we get in front of their eyes, we present them with this motivation or within the context of their motivational drivers, and then we test it out. We see how this goes. Honestly, I think the thing that might be the closest to this that folks listening would be familiar with are category entry points, a lot of the folks at the Ehrenberg-Bass, I think, Institute. And essentially it's just sort of like, okay, what situations would people find themselves in where they would possibly buy your product to solve whatever they're dealing with? Like I'm hungry, that's a motivational driver, and it's one of the key motivational drivers for Snickers. That's a motivational driver.
And so when you have a good collection of what these motivational drivers are, and it's a specific collection of them, because you don't want all of the motivational drivers that could possibly be connected to this motivation, because then you're just talking to everybody, but the set of motivational drivers that you are especially positioned to address, and the motivation, you present those things, the chances are insanely high, I'm not going to give it a number because I don't want these people coming from my neck, but the chances are insanely high that you're going to gain attention.
Reid Carr: Yeah. You resonate. At that point, when someone resonates, someone starts to be much more open. And that's where you were talking about receptivity earlier, is they become receptive. They're like, "Wait, you're speaking to my motivational drivers. And now I-
Chloe Nwangwu: Exactly.
Reid Carr: As you said, if you have this reason to be in the category, like I'm hungry, a fairly basic instinct, but then what the next level is what differentiates you is that's why you... All of these ones can solve the basic instinct, but your version of it is something different that resonates with me. And if we hit the spectrum across however many, five audiences, that are receptive because we resonate with them, now, to put a number on it, let's say you're at that 20% market share somewhere, but enormous for most brands, if all of a sudden you pick pick 5% from every category. So there is probably a mathematical formula, probably depending on how many competitors there are, some of those other things, but how big that audience is. But when you start to gain leaps and bounds of market share as a result of resonating in an authentic way with more people, that's when this works.
So that's the connection to brand. I think we're doing two things here, which is satisfying the need in the world, to a degree, but satisfying the corporate need as, "Hey, we got to reach more people, buy more product." And if we're doing this right, we're making our product better for our audiences and thereby creating a greater degree of longevity, sustainability for the brand.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah.
Reid Carr: There you go. We solved it. We just solved this.
Chloe Nwangwu: Because yeah, done. I was going to say, because frankly, the whole bombastic, let's be very in your... That's not sustainable.
Reid Carr: No.
Chloe Nwangwu: And eventually, somebody is going to... You know what? I'm not even going to talk worst case scenarios. You know what happens when you use that as a long term strategy, my friends who are listening. So just avoid that entirely.
Reid Carr: Well, it's funny, I'll bring it down a notch emotionally, I think, from those bombastic versions that are worst case scenario that aren't associated with it, it was deep, deep discounts. You're like, "Act now, store is closing."
Chloe Nwangwu: Oh my gosh. Yeah.
Reid Carr: Clearly that's not a sustainable performance, but it's resonating with certain people, which is you can get this thing for way cheaper today. And that means that's the beginning of the end. And most brands would say, "I don't want to compete on price." There are some out there, but very few that want to compete on price. And those who do is because they can handle it in volume. Most brands can't do that. So that's, I think, a different worst case scenario. If you're resorting to those tactics, it's because whatever you've been doing doesn't resonate.
Chloe Nwangwu: Exactly. Perfect, perfect example. Yeah, perfect example.
how do marketers promote this diversity, inclusivity, the stakeholder spectrum-type thinking within their company?
Reid Carr: So the last question that I want to ask, because I want to bring it now back into the four walls of the brand, there's a lot of different, we talked about tools, audits and things we could do differently, but for those that are listening today, going, "Oh my gosh, I'm so inspired. I need to do some things differently today. Make some baby steps towards this," what would you say inside their four walls, when they go back to the office, when they're driving to the office, as some of us these days are doing, how do they promote this diversity, inclusivity, the stakeholder spectrum-type thinking within their four walls amidst a marketing team beyond themselves, 10, 12, hundreds, whatever that may be?
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, good question. Okay. So I would say a couple of things. One of them will probably be self-serving, but you know.
Reid Carr: Yes.
Chloe Nwangwu: You know.
Reid Carr: You know I'm going to end this whole thing about how people can contact you.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, absolutely.
Reid Carr: So, we'll get to that part too.
Chloe Nwangwu: Totally. I'm not even worried about that. But I'm just thinking about a recent article that I wrote that might actually be really helpful for these purposes. The first thing that I would say is, and I know that this will sound like a cop out to some, but first start by changing some of your language. So I did have a piece come out in Harvard Business Review about this, about why we should use the word under-recognized instead of the word underrepresented. And so I think that even just that kind of tiny tweak is going to probably raise some eyebrows. That's enough to raise eyebrows, get a little bit of curiosity. If enough people are doing that and asking the question, "Oh, why do you use this word? What do you mean by this?" then you can start getting into the idea of, "Well, actually there's this whole concept of this visibility biases and all these things, everything that we talked about." It's a gateway into having that bigger conversation. So that's one thing that I would say. Another thing that I would say, and I think this is something that I shared with you all at Red Door, the sniff test?
Reid Carr: Yeah, yeah.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah. The SNIFF test, which is one of my favorite things I have ever created. And so the SNIFF test, essentially, you don't necessarily need your whole team to do this, but you could be doing this as you are looking at your creative, as you are looking at your, gosh, anything, I know I keep saying creative, but just anything that's going out and representing the brand in some way. So you can ask yourself, "Does it pass the SNIFF test? And it's spelled the same way, S_N-I-F-F. And so what that means is, okay, stakeholder awareness, that's the S in SNIFF. And what you ask yourself then is say, "Okay, who is this going to affect, this thing that we're doing? Who's going to be affected by this?" You can even do a stakeholder spectrum if you want to. And like I said, we'll probably have a link so that you can see what those look like. "And who have we made invisible in the work that we've already done?" So ask yourselves those two key questions, and you're going to find some fruitful things come up. And you're going to be able to contribute really fruitfully to the discussion that your teams are having as a result.
The second letter is N, and that's needs. So you want to ask, "Okay, does what we are portraying match up with fundamental human needs?" And this is sort of a basic thing that we probably have all asked ourselves at some point about our stuff. But if we're thinking about it in the context of folks we have made invisible, and whether or not our stuff is also meeting their fundamental human needs, that opens up another door. So that's N. Then we have I, impact. What does this thing that we've created, what does it reinforce? Is that thing we're reinforcing, is that good? And also realizing that impact isn't the same across cultural context. So that's impact. We could spend another podcast episode here, but I will not.
Reid Carr: Episode three.
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, episode three, impact, what does it mean to you? The impact of your creative. Then we have F, which is friends. And this is something that I know someone on your team loved and laughed about.
Reid Carr: Yeah, we did. We loved this one.
Chloe Nwangwu: And this is just sort of... It's the friends test. So for those who are familiar with the show Friends, for some reason for the longest time it was set in New York, but everybody was white. And you're just like, "Wait, really? Was everyone in New York white? I don't know. I feel like that's not right." And so the friends test is essentially, "Is everybody X?" whatever that happens to be. And go through every kind of identity that you can think of. Is everybody X? And then ask yourselves why, and ask yourself, "Does it have to be that way for us to accomplish our goals?" Chances are that it does not, especially given everything that we've spoken about. But maybe it does. But ask yourself that question.
And then the final F is feasible. And oh my gosh, this is the fourth podcast episode. Is your equity branding... And we didn't even get into this. Man. okay. Is your equity branding feasible? Is it believable? We're not even going to get into what your equity brand is today, but just the idea that your... Are your attempts at being and seeming equitable, are they believable to folks who are on the outside looking in? And are they feasible? Right? Just given your team and the way that it's set up, does it make sense for you to be making some of the decisions that you are making about things? Anyway, do a SNIFF test. It doesn't have to be long and involved.
Reid Carr: We love the acronyms around here. It's way easier to remember all this stuff, right?
Chloe Nwangwu: Yeah, exactly.
Reid Carr: And that's what makes it so practical, and what a great one to give to people. I think the friends one, one of the things that certainly resonated, obviously beside being a fan of the show at the time, and you look at it back on it and you're like, "Oh, man."
Chloe Nwangwu: And you're like, "Oh, no."
Reid Carr: Yeah. Oh, gosh, you're right. But the other part is, and had a friend of mine talk to me about this the other day, who's also... Aside from the external communication, what we're presenting, and obviously you mentioned the feasibility of it, but internally, who's represented in the room where the decisions are being made?
Chloe Nwangwu: Absolutely.
Reid Carr: Which I know is a challenge from businesses who are trying to make progress, and they're like, "Well, I don't have..." And this is where I would say that when you talk about the right word, what the right word in the context is, "In our room is underrepresented. They're not here representing us or whatever. But are we getting the right lens on all this?" I think the SNIFF test is a fantastic way to kind of act as a crutch if you're not all the way there. And the same token is, is what can you do to make progress to make sure that the diversity is represented where decisions are being made so that everyone's looking at this and going, "Man, we're really missing something." Because that's where opportunity can really come from. And that's what we want everyone here, the listeners, to think about is doing this right also, it's not just about "doing the right thing," this makes business sense. This is going to be the thing that helps you move the needle on performance. And I think you will be well regarded in marketing circles if you deploy the tips here though.
So Chloe, it was fantastic having you on the show. I really appreciate certainly the work that you do, the work that you've done for us to help us make progress down this and then certainly for those who are listening. Obviously, I encourage all of them to work with you as well, as many as you can handle, I should say.
Chloe Nwangwu: Please do.
Reid Carr: So, if they want to do that, how do they get ahold of you? Why don't you give us that real quick?
Chloe Nwangwu: Sure. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So if you have questions, if you're like, "Equity brand? What does that mean?" Or, "Visibility, biases, say more," I do a visibility clinic every month. And it's essentially a Q&A. So come in, ask your questions about this, I'm happy to answer. And I'm sure we can include links. If you are somebody who feels like, "Yep, visibility biases are a thing that we've got to tackle," then what I suggest is coming in and let's do a visibility prescription, and we can also include a link for that. And honestly, we'll just sort of assess, either if it's your brand, we'll assess your brand, if it's a client's brand, we'll assess a client's brand, and we'll see, okay, what do they need to work on in order to sort of defuse these biases that we've been talking about today?
And then finally, if you're like, "Nah, it feels like a bit of a heavy lift right now," I do have a nerd list where I share all of my research and any interesting articles that I come across. So feel free to join the nerd list, and you'll be the first to know, after me, when something interesting or cool comes out.
Reid Carr: Absolutely. Well, we all appreciate the nerds in our life, I know for sure. And we appreciate you again for coming on this show. The brand scientist, you paid it off really well on this one.
Check out our show notes from this episode, which will include the links that we talked about and more. You can find that on reddoor.biz/learn. And as always, subscribe to The Marketing Remix and leave us a review on Apple Podcast.