Ep.131: Unpacking marketing claims

This transcription has been AI generated and therefore may have some inaccuracies.

Ep.131: Unpacking marketing claims

In this latest episode of WTiN’s Textile Innovation podcast, we speak with Shivam Gusain water engineer, dyestuff chemist and LCA analyst, about his work in LCAs and problem solving within the textile industry.

WTiN: Hello and welcome to Textile Innovation, hosted by WTiN. My name is Abi and I'm the Features Editor and your podcast host. Each month we will be joined by a special guest. So join me and my colleagues as we deep dive into what's new, what's interesting, and what unmissable innovations have hit the market recently. We cover everything on the podcast from sustainability to startups and the latest research and development. Plus we quiz the experts in the field about their products and ideas across the huge spectrum that is the textile industry. So no matter what your interest is WTiN have you covered and we can connect you to everything you need to know right here from our central hub in the UK.

In this episode, I'm joined by Shivam Gusain, Water Engineer, Dyestuff Chemist and LCA Analyst. Shivam delves into the problems surrounding decarbonisation and circularity within the textile supply chain. He touches upon how some innovations can be misrepresented when they are marketed to the industry. He also speaks about what solutions could be a real game changer in the future.

Hi Shivam, thank you so much for joining me on WTiN's Textile Innovation podcast. Please could you tell our listeners about your background in textile manufacturing and what led you to impact assessments?

Gusain: Yeah perfect, thank you so much for having me over Abigail. Regarding me, my background in regards to the textile industry doesn't come from the conventional aspect of producing textiles per se, but more so from the chemical side of things because I did my bachelor's in dye stuff chemistry and intermediate, so producing different dyes and pigments and auxiliaries, but not just used in textiles, but across industries wherever coloration is required. So it could be for wine bottles or any other things that you see around you, also requires colouration from that matter, automobiles, anything else. So I studied mostly on how to make those chemistries. So, but it was still primarily driven by text and coloration within my academic time. So we used to do a lot of these dyeings and once we finished the dyeing, we would throw away all the chemicals or the bath into the drainage. And that was a bit concerning to me and I was usually never very happy with being a university with doing this. How do we expect the industry who's trying to make a profit and thin margins will be able to clean up their excess waste that they're producing?

And then slowly and steadily, I went ahead to do my master's in wastewater engineering, trying to understand how we can come up with newer technologies to deal with the waste that we create. So, that is where most of my interest in the waste side of things come from, which we can go into later as well. And then, in terms of impact, during my previous work, while I was at Fashion Figured, we obviously come across a lot of different innovations, because that was the core premise of the work that we were doing there. We would look at different innovations. I looked at mostly on the ones on the processing side of things, so pre-treatment, dyeing, finishing, technologies, both chemistry and machinery. And usually the impact cases are, for most of these disruptions, quite high. So you will see values in the 70 to 90% savings range. And of course, in order for me to back a solution, I need to be absolutely sure what I'm backing is also the truth. And if they can actually deliver on the promises, and as we've seen within the industry, there's a lot of over promising under delivering that happens. And that's why a lot of these innovations fail or don't really get adopted into the industry. So I wanted to understand how I could verify if these claims are valid or not, and that's how I got into the LCA side of things.

And I did my LCA certification separately while I was working to understand, with a core focus on how the data could be manipulated. That was one of the key requirements that I spoke to my teacher while I was studying, is can you tell me how can we mess with the data to showcase results in our own favour so that I could understand what the industry might do. I'm not saying that the industry is planning to do it, but there are obviously actors who try to get data more in their favour, and that is what I focused on. And then once I realized, I came back, and now I'm able to look at data. I go through hundreds of LCAs from time to time. I support some people in doing the LCAs as well and that way is how I got into the whole textile fashion and LCA space.

WTiN: I think you just touched upon it a little bit but from your work within impact assessments and LCAs, what have you personally identified as some of the biggest areas of concerns within the textile supply chain? So that's probably a very big question and a lot to unpack.

Gusain: Of course, and a really good question as well, and I think most of my core writings, I don't know if people who are reading my Substack, otherwise on LinkedIn, is I go into these deeper analysis, breaking down the LCS for certain things. So I see two core problems. One is specifically boundary conditions.

That is a core aspect of life cycle assessments is you need to choose from where to where are you doing the assessment. So that is one area of problem. Why is it a area of problem is, it's not necessarily that people are lying, but if you limit your boundary and you give out the results. So when most of these, let's say, dying machinery players, you know, when they come and they say, okay, we waterless dying or we are low liquor dying. And they say, I have 80% savings. By that they mean they have 80% savings in the sole dying step itself. Not before, not after. There's pre-treatment, there's washing, then you do the dyeing, then you have washing again, then you have finishing. So if you just look at one dyeing step, they can reduce the water by 80%. But if you were to look at the wet processing of that particular fabric as a whole, even with this new machinery, it might be 10%, 15% overall water coming down because all the other steps are also water intensive. So dyeing is usually confused within the industry as a lot of steps.

Dyeing is one step. You need to hot wash before, afterwards you have another wash, you go through four or five wash cycles, then you do finishing. So usually most of these LCAs are correct in what they deliver, but in the way they're communicated is problematic because you're telling the industry or the brands or the supply chain that we're gonna reduce your water footprint by 80%. Sure, but explain really well that you're just gonna do it in one step, not across the board. So your overall factory water consumption will not go down by 80%. It might go down by 10%, which is still great. And you should sell it from the perspective that we don't have the entire solution, but our step is going to be really effective. We might reduce your chemistry, your everything else. So that is one aspect, which is more so easier addressed because it's not necessarily cheating. It's more so not explaining it well, I would say, is you don't give up the entire picture. The other one is outright using data which favours you, which is something that else can be done. So LCA is one of those areas of science, which is not very robust in terms of the way laws of physics work.

You can't break them. They are what they are, and they're always applicable across the globe. LCA is you can manipulate as and when how much you want, what sources you have. So specifically if we were to look at let's say recyclers for that matter. So most of these recyclers whatever claims they're making, let's say they say 50%, 70% reduction. First problem is they do not release their LCAs publicly. So we have no way to verify how it works out that way. So that is a big concern that the industry needs to move towards, and there's a lot of big claims, but we have no guarantee those work out. The other ones are most of them are aspirational from the perspective that they are future considerations, where in they're considering, oh, we're going to have all renewable energy, and that's why our impact is going to be lower. But you don't have that right now. So what is your impact right now? If I implement it today, will I still get the 50% or will I get 10% or will it be worse by 20%?

We don't know for sure. So most of these claims – because LCA you can spin any way you want. Some of them are over exaggeration. So let's say you do a reaction in a lab. In a lab, let's say you have very controlled conditions. I'm considering an example for recyclers. Very controlled conditions, very clean feedstock.

You put it in a lab reactor, maybe a couple 2 kg, 5 kg reactor. You put everything, the thermodynamics is easy to control, there's very less contaminants, your reaction yield is very nice. You take that data, you supplement it to the LCA, you say, wow, oh my yield was 95 percent, my impact is quite nice. Will you be able to maintain that yield when you scale up? We're not sure. Will you be able to maintain the level of contaminants at scale? We're not sure. All of those different variables, will you be able to control the thermodynamics of the reaction, the kinetics of the reaction, the temperature control. Yeah. So there's the amount of variables keep changing. So they make a claim based on one LCA that they did early on and keep selling to the industry, to the investors, to the brands and everyone else. And this leads to a significantly other unbiased or like a more of a biased problem is how we look at different fibres. Synthetics or especially industrialized fibres, have the advantage that they have to provide their LCA once and people take it at face value and you can continue it for years. But natural and animal fibres have to prove their case every single year because your yield will change because, oh, this year the weather was not that great so my output is less. And I'm in India, so let's say this year it was rain fed, but the rainfall was less, I did some irrigation. LCA changes. I'm in Brazil, LCA changes. I'm in Egypt, LCA changes. So they have to consistently prove every year, and they have limited resources to begin with because they are farmers. So they're already on the lower side of the economic front wherein they don't have as much resources yet they still have to always prove. Same goes with animal fibres. But synthetic fibres, the value changes significantly. If you look at European plastics data, which was the original data that we used for mostly PET, PLA, PA, all of these other different plastics, their fossil fuel extraction data for crude oil comes from 2001, which is more than two decades away. So the core principle of how all polymers are made is through crude oil. And if that data is old, everything else that is built on that data is also problematic because there's an error or margin which we haven't accounted for. And now with the new EcoInvent update that happened, they took care of some of the methane emissions that happened upstream during extraction, transportation, refining. And the impact went up significantly. So the European Plastics PET value is 2.2. The EcoInvent PET value is 3.12. There's a massive gap, almost by 40, 50%. So we have been working with old data in favour of synthetics and we've been very happy that this works out this way. And it's very difficult to get more data because we're not asking for any credibility or accountability on the synthetic side of things. Very little. We take it for granted. But the other side is painfully just having to come up with new data every year to prove their worth, which is a problem. So hence LCA's are very, it's a very great tool but it's a very manipulative tool as well and that is causing a lot of problems for the industry.

WTiN: Thank you for going through that. I know that you previously worked at Fashion for Good but please could you tell me more about Decypher, apologies if I have pronounced that wrong, and your work in that space?

Gusain: Yeah perfect, I mean yeah you pronounce it perfectly well. I mean decipher is usually, I mean it's spelled differently, I have a Y in it. That's also the core principle of why I started this is I ask a lot of questions. There's always a why. Is why are we doing this? Why does it work this way? Why are we solving for this? So that was a big motivation behind and with this company that I've now started where I work as a more of a freelance consultant for different brands and supply chain partners and innovators across the board, it doesn't really matter anywhere I can help. The core premise is I'm not trying to sell you any of the benefits of any technology or anything. I'm trying to sell you how to remove your risk more or less. I'm not interested because the entire industry is telling you what the benefits or the good things of a technology are. You know 80% savings, 90% savings, this will do that, this will do that. I'm not interested in that. We have plenty of that. I'm going to try and come towards you and I'm going to be asking, I'm going to be very honest, what are your problems? How are you facing it?

Let's break it down and let's build it back up so I can remove your risk coefficient or reduce it significantly so that the chance of failure comes down.

There's a lot of chance for success from different avenues. I'm trying to reduce the chance of failure. That is the core premise. And so most of my work is on the decarbonization side of things with energy source replacement with boilers, heat pumps, electric boilers, whatever it be, dyeing machines, pretreatment machines, chemistry, most of this. But then I also help out innovators from time to time sometimes with their compliance mapping or decarbonization roadmap or what should they do in terms of what do they need to upgrade or how do they need to scale up their processes, mostly on the Dice stuff side of things. And then eventually I'm also – I mean currently on my own. This is not something that I'm doing for clients but I work on a lot of different business models that I'm trying to create. One of them which I'm going to be releasing very soon and I am hoping it's going to be interesting and useful for the industry, wherein I'm trying to solve for both decarbonization and next-gen adoption, but at the same time, instead of considering them as two different variables, I'm trying to find a way to leverage one to support the other.

WTiN: And just coming off the back of this, we obviously get so many innovations coming through that address issues that you've mentioned, such like circularity, sustainability, within the textile supply chain. However you have identified flaws in how these innovation and advancements are presented. Please could you expand on what you have found to be problematic within say the marketing of these innovations and advancements?

Gusain: Yeah I think people people are not gonna be very happy with this, but it has to be said at some point. And I think in recent times, I mean, it's been going on for a long time now, but especially in recent times, we've seen several articles after articles or new press releases about these massive off-picks or new partnership deals, and with synergy and all of these things. And most of these articles, if you go through them, they are absolutely optimistic. They give you this whole new outlook on life, more or less, if you are working in sustainability and you're like, oh, wow, things are moving in the right direction. But once you reread it, and maybe you read it the third time or the fourth time, you start to realize that there's very less substance in the entire article. It's a lot of buzzwords, which are very creative and useful to create the initial buzz. But beyond that, you don't really find out what is actually happening. So we take any of the recent press releases for any of the – I mean, in the current time, it's always been recyclers, we're making the most noise. And you see, oh, we have a partnership with X and Y supplier, and they're gonna buy this much quantity, and sometimes the quantities are not even given. They just say, it's a new partnership for the next five years, and we're very happy to come together and whatever that be. But we don't know when they're going to purchase something. We don't know if it's a guaranteed purchase agreement. We don't know what the quantities are.

We have no idea as to what it is. We just know that there is a strategic agreement between two partners. So it doesn't give me hope, considering our history within the textile industry, where a lot of commitments have been made, and most of those commitments have been backed out of. But most of these offtake agreements or all of these press releases give us nothing, but we don't have any of the specifics. We hear that there's a new model in place or new financial model, which is making this happen. We don't have a lot of specifics on that. We don't know what the quantities are. And then the other aspect of these market press releases and everything else as well, is they're boasting on the fact that nothing actually exists. So you're saying, okay, let's take the example of someone else. Now, Sarah can read you, all of the both of them announced that they're setting up plants. Of course, both of the plants are three to four years away. Nothing actually exists right now. But a significant amount of noise in terms of, you know, we're gonna be able to do this and that much and these quantities and everything else. But none of it is actually backed by any of the information in terms of, do you have enough feedstock, which is a continuous problem, which most of these companies are also complaining about on the other end.

If you look at the Texel-Texel Alliance, CERC is part of it and they're saying there's not enough feedstock, but then they also have plans to create this facility and of course, if you're making a facility, you should have the feedstock in place or actually at least plans, which they might do, but nothing concrete comes out of all of these announcements. I have personally done a lot of these calculations in terms of the goal of the industry is to defossilize. Defossilizing is just reducing your reliance on fossil fuel. We have two pathways where fossil fuels are used. One is energy, the other is fibres or raw material. Of course the energy side of things uses much more fossil and fossil resources than fibres. Even though the fibre volumes are massive, energy resource far outweigh that.

So the goal of the industry is to de-fossilize. We can prioritize decarbonization methods within the supply chain first because not only are they more efficient to do, we have guaranteed solutions that work today which are actually drop-in. You don't need much testing for it. We know they are practically good solutions. They work. We've done multiple case studies. We have all the much testing for it. We know they are practically good solutions, they work, we've done multiple case studies, we have all the necessary data for it. And yet we choose to pursue something that is a maybe. It could work, because it looks nicer, because of all of these marketing plays. You will never hear, or I don't know if I've ever seen an article wherein people have written about a heat pump being installed in such a nice manner. Never once, like, oh, okay, this company replaced the boiler. Thank you so much, a small mention here and there. But a material which does not exist, which you have not seen, which we don't know if it's gonna perform well, is the talk of the town, and the industry is like, oh, we're moving is the bigger player. The fibre does not exist and it's not going to exist for the next three years. So it's just noise. We're not actually moving in any direction.

We might be in three to five years, but in the meantime, we're wasting a lot of time. And good practical solutions are lying there. And a lot of these good innovations, I would say, one of my not so much favourite recyclers I would say but one of the ones that I respect much more as opposed to the other recyclers is called Cure Technologies coming from the Netherlands. They are a technology I have actually personally visited them as well in the past and I've spoken to the team, really good team, really scientific, they know what they're doing, they know the pros and cons, the limitations of the technology. They don't make a lot of noise. I don't think they believe in the over promising, under delivering aspect.

And they're trying to make their way slowly and steadily. Of course, they might not be growing as fast as some of the other players, because they're not trying to get into this whole marketing ploy, where they just make a lot of noise, get all the correct funding in and just over promise everything. And in the long term, I would want money, the right money to flow to these players who are actually doing the making the change, but are not making a lot of noise and are actually actively working and are very honest about their limitations and the positives that they bring to the table. The same goes with another player from Australia with BlockTex. BlockTex does the same. They actually deal with post-consumer waste. Most of these recyclers are making their claims that we're gonna deal with the 92 million tonnes of waste that we have and everything else. But most of them are still only looking for pre-consumer or post-industrial waste, which is not really solving for much because you're taking already clean cut nice waste which could be mechanically recycled and it doesn't really solve the consumer problem of disposal and everything else. But solutions like BlockTech based out of Australia, they are actively pursuing post-consumer waste only and not necessarily looking to just find a easy way in to just deal with post-industrial, get the money going, scale up the factories.

So credible solutions are being overlooked from that matter because they don't have good marketing skills I would say. Sure you can say we're going to plug into absolute 100% renewables. I could do the same for mechanical to a certain extent. Of course they don't rely on electrical energy as much. But you can find ways to get the thermal component electrified as well. Might be difficult. But then comes the aspect of will you be able to deliver the fibre at cost if you have to plug into so much renewable energy? Because renewable energy is not so cheap. And if you have to procure millions of kilowatt hour to run your plants on completely renewable the aspect that we're going to be cost competitive in a couple of years is not going to happen. Then you're selling another illusion to the industries. We're gonna have the lowest impact and we're also gonna be cost competitive all at the same time within a time frame of two to three years. I don't see it happening. The numbers don't favour them. I did this math for, in one of my articles it's called, with great power comes great responsibility. When I look at Infiniti fibre company with the cellulose carbonate technology, wherein their LCA from back in the day from the new cotton project is publicly available. And they showcase the electrical component of their impact.

So they require about 5.38 kilowatt hour of energy or electricity to make one kg of fibre. So of course I know what one kg is. So if I were to produce a million tonnes of fibre a year, which is a reasonable goal, a million tonnes is not too much, still big enough, but not so much. They will require so much renewable electricity.

And when I did the math for 10 million tonnes, which is still very low, of course, in the man-made cellulosic space, that would be quite a big because the overall man-made cellulosic space is about 7.58 million tonnes. But eventually, the electricity consumption for, I think, for Finland, they would take up 70% of the electricity consumption of entire country of Finland just to run that plant for 10 million tonnes. So of course, if you have to do these you will not make a plant in Europe, you'll have to make a plant in Asian countries wherein renewable energy are not so rapidly available. They're growing but they're not available so abundantly, so you'll practically have to fund it yourself. Thinking about that, how do you believe brands and manufacturers can better portray their advancements? Yeah, I think the first one will be the industry needs to come back to come back to its baseline from a marketing standpoint. We have over the last few years fuelled the marketing so much that any solution that doesn't bring about 20% or like more than 50% is not even considered a great solution anymore. So we have over exaggerated our claims that sometimes the nice decent, good claims of 5% savings, 10% savings, are just not even seen worthwhile to pursue. Like, oh yeah, this is not gonna be, the investors shy away because they don't see, oh wow, this will look great on our ESG scores and everything else, because it's a small ticket idea. But then I had written an article and I think Apparel Impact Institute uses this model really well, which is the area under the curve in terms of if you're looking at a solution, you have to look at the potential of the solution and its adoptability. Those are the two variables you need to look at. But only five percent of the industry adopts it, so it's 18 to five. You get a very small number. So it always comes down to you don't just need to chase the biggest solutions. You need to chase the solutions which have the multiplication of both this, the impact savings multiplied by the adaptability in the industry. There's a lot of credible solutions which AI has looked at within the climate solutions portfolio which come under a certain – they do a calculation for carbon abated per ton in terms of monetary or in terms of dollars. So how many dollars would you have to spend to remove one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere for a particular solution?

But if you look at these big ticket ideas of recycle the biobased materials or anything on the material energy side, it's usually beyond a thousand dollars or a thousand euros per ton. So you have to spend tenfold or fivefold the money to get the same impact reduction. So we don't convert it. We just now, the industry started to look at it from an absolute value, 80%, 70%. We need to go back to the figure that this AI is using or do these calculations where in don't just look at a solution, look at a solution from a cost per CO2 removed. And once you look at all of these solutions from that lens, things will start to balance out and the actual good creative solutions which have value will start to come up from a marketing perspective. And also the other aspect is, I think we need to move back towards telling the truth. There is no shame in your solution being 20%. It's a great solution. I would be, if I had a lot of money to spend in the industry, I would not be touching any of the bigger solutions which promise a lot. I would just be going with the ones because those make change and make it quick and give me the guaranteed returns and it creates a case study for success.

WTiN: And you've touched upon my final question, but I'm going to ask you anyway. Moving forward, what real change do you think is possible in the textile supply chain when it comes to circularity and sustainability? And what does this change look like to you?

Gusain: Well, that's an interesting one. It's difficult to answer because everyone, I mean, I can paint you a picture of what I would like for it to happen instead of what maybe the industry would do or maybe is gonna pursue. From my understanding, I think we need to stop looking at it as two different elements. The whole aspect of what would happen with decarbonization and what would happen with circularity and what would happen with sustainability as a whole.

They're not separate entities. They are one entity tackling different areas. It's all the same thing, because the end result is in the same direction, no matter what you do. So I think we need to, or the brands particularly, and I think in the beginning, I had mentioned about the business model that I'm trying to create Will tackle this exactly we've seen decarbonization solutions as a separate entity And then let's say material substitution our next-gen fibre adoption as two different things brands pursue one more than the other for obvious reasons because Fibers is something that they sell to the consumers, so they have a marketing play there. You know okay. I have my fibre. I had virgin before now now I have recycled, I have something else, I have new this new thing. So you can tell to the consumer, there's a consumer facing story. On the decarbonizing side of things, brands are a bit hesitant because you don't own the machines. They are the supplier's machine. So you're a bit hesitant as to why should I buy them a machine. Let's say if you were not hesitant, you were planning to buy them a machine. The next challenge comes is, OK, if I buy them a machine and it has impact savings, I'm not the only one that benefits. Most of my competitors who also produce in the same factory will get the benefits on my behalf. So I'm practically funding their improvements. That is usually not something that the brand enjoys because they're like, oh wow, if I'm a big brand and I'm doing all this work, the other brands just ride along and don't do any changes and they get freebies. So these are two big problems that we have facing.

In the new model that I'm trying to come up with is can we merge the two? Can we give something to the brands from a decarbonization effort that they can sell to the end consumer. Is there a way to unlock fiber adoption but through a decarbonization initiative? So you find a nice way when you do the decarbonization, it generates an additional flow of cash for the supplier which allows them to adopt or take care of the premium that comes along with fibre adoption. And if both of those can happen together maybe there's a possibility for them to kickstart fibre adoption while also cleaning up their supply chain. And it works as a double effect because not only will you be producing better materials, you'll be producing better materials in a factory which is running one of the best systems, one of the cleanest systems. So your output of the products is not 10% better or 15% better. It might be 50 or 60% better, which is the big ticket ideas all of these bigger players are looking for. So you can get those big ticket ideas through materials by investing first in decarbonization. So that is the core premise of the idea. Of course, I would love to go more in detail as to how it plays out, but as it's still in under development, I don't wanna give it away right now, but hopefully in the next two weeks, it should come out.

And I'm hoping I can collaborate with different brands and supply chain partners to see if we can work out the math and this could be a thing to solve for both and not just one. So in my view of the future as to how these things need to go together, this has to be the pathway as you need to link both of these strategies together. On the circularity side of things, we need to move away from the aspect and go back to the waste hierarchy that we had. Is with the reuse, repair, resale, rental, and other things, we have jumped to recycling very quickly. Maybe for good reason, because we haven't been able to make the other circularity business model work so far, but it could also be that we haven't given them enough of a chance. And I hosted my first office hour yesterday, and this was the first question as to, why do we have so much overproduction? We have actively known this for the last decade, two decades that we produce way too much. 20 to 30% of the products are not being sold.

Why are we not cutting down? And my response was, it goes against the conventional business model of growth. They do not want to cut off the whole thing that keeps them in business. Now people don't realize you see, oh, Earth Overshoot Day happened in April. Doesn't mean much to me or to other people. Of course, I mean, to me, I understand that we've used our resources, but to the average consumer, okay, sure. And this is this, that is that. But if you put it in equitable terms for people to understand, okay, this is the sustained level of living, which is not problematic. You can buy enough, but not way too much. And then you try to bring in other circularity initiatives of repair, reuse, rental, resale. So when I said that our volume of sustained living can be higher than the Earth's resources, Let's say it's 20% higher.

That means you need 20% circular models only to work because you can do virgin production for the 80% and this 20% is extra. That's where the circularity needs to come in so that you don't use new resources to fund that 20%. You use the previous resources that we had to fund the excess. So then you would have a reasonable goal for circularity as well in the beginning. You don't have massive goals that you have to achieve. You have reasonable goals and I'm like okay if I can reuse, if I can increase reuse by 5% in 4 years times or 10 years time we will reach a society wherein we can maintain and we can keep growing after that but we need to quantify it. Right now in circularity we're running blind.

WTiN: Thank you Shivam that was all really interesting and so insightful and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from you in terms of your research in the coming weeks. Thank you so much for joining us today on the WTiN Textile Innovation Podcast.

Thank you so much for listening. If you have any questions or want to learn more, you can follow us on LinkedIn at World Textile Information Network, or you can contact me directly at content at WTIN.com. If you are interested in sponsoring an episode of the podcast, please email sales at WTIN.com. email sales at WTIN.com. Thank you and we'll see you next time.