Episode 38: Jana Thomas on Public Health and Behavior Change Marketing
How do we speak to people’s minds and hearts?
To get them to do what’s best for them, even when they’d rather not?
How do we keep COVID-19 from becoming an all-out political war on messaging?
In this episode Jana Leigh Thomas from Porter Novelli and I talk about this. At Creative Outhouse we’ve worked with Porter Novelli on public health campaigns for a long, long time for the CDC, health associations and hospitals. Health is an emotionally charged topic and it’s one of our specialties. Because we specialize in creative that’s not only powerful, but is based on the science of human behavior and behavior change.
This is an important episode, so check it out. And let us know what you think here: Creativeouthouse.com/contact-us.
Jana Thomas on Public Health
Welcome to Marketing Upheaval. My guest is Jana Leigh Thomas , Executive Vice President at Porter Novelli , Jana is an expert in public policy, particularly when it comes to public health and behavior change. For most of her 20+ year career, Jana has worked on public health initiatives from a local, national, global scale. We’ve worked together on many public health projects that influence behavior, and we’re going to talk about one of those today. Public Health communications seems like a good topic in the middle of a pandemic. So thanks for joining me, Jana.
Jana: Thank you, Rudy
Public Health Messaging for Consumer Campaigns
Rudy: We’re in a unique period in history where public health and business are now intertwined probably like never before. And we see companies not in the health space reaching out to people, whether they’re doing it well or not, is a matter of opinion. But how do you think companies are responding? What should they know about human behavior (and behavior change marketing), especially when it comes to health?
Jana: I think it’s a really interesting time. Companies right now are being forced to talk about public health in ways that are just not natural or native to the brand or their consumer level of engagement. I think some of the important things to think about is really taking a moment to understand the human side of the health communication you’re trying to convey. A lot of times we think we just need to tell people what they need to know. And they’ll do it right, because knowledge is power. It’s what we learned watching Schoolhouse Rock when we were really young. But behavior change doesn’t always work that way. We have a lot of context that we bring into situations.
Rudy: It never works that way. It never works. Because otherwise no one would smoke. And I would obey the speed limit.
Jana: And you would choose an apple over a candy bar. You know, we manage a lot of dynamics when we’re making decisions about our health.
Information is Not Motivation
Rudy: Yeah, it’s funny. We’ve been doing behavior change and healthcare marketing for a long time. But you see now car companies and every company trying to figure out: how do I talk about health and my product in the same breath? And at the same time, we’re in an empty building. We’re sitting six feet apart, by the way. And the only people here are the security guards and they all have their masks hanging over one ear. So information is not enough.
Jana: No. We do work in vaccines and looking at the potential of a COVID-19 vaccine coming out and how do you talk about this in ways that it’s meaningful to people? If you watch the news or listen to conversations, it’s easy to assume people are just gonna run and get it. Because every newscast is an update on where we are, and how soon can we get it. When you look at vaccines overall, and how people make decisions about their own health and safety. It’s not always just as I said before, information. So the companies that are talking about health are talking about how they value it like you do, and they want to make that emotional connection. But when people are making decisions about their own health, they’re weighing information across a spectrum. And one part of the spectrum is risk. And the other part is sense of health. So you have people right now who are “vaccine no matter what, I’m going to get it”. Or “mask no matter what, I’m going to wear it”. As we were joking even driving in my car because I value my health so much.
At the other end of the spectrum is how much risk are you willing to take? And so now you’re starting to see this fatigue, the initial conversations about COVID were around, You might not be at risk, but you should do it for other people. Social distance, take care of yourself for other people. Well, that fatigue, our ability to want to inconvenience ourselves, for the sake of other people has a shelf life. We’re starting to see that shelf life dissipate. And we’re having to change the message and change the conversation. Because also our health decisions don’t exist as at one point in time, and we’re committed to them forever. We change our perspective all the time, based on what is the risk we’re willing to accept? And what is our value of health in our daily life?
Rudy: Yeah. And what’s important to us and I think how that action relates to the story, I tell myself about your identity is. Does somebody like me do this?
Behavior Change and Values
Jana: They also have the perception of susceptibility. So how likely Am I to get it? Yeah, so if I’m in a community where there’s not a lot of people, I think my susceptibility chances are pretty low. I’m not likely to get it, but also some variability. So how sick am I likely to get? So initial conversations like “it’s just the flu”, it makes you feel like “okay, I might be highly susceptible, but I’m not going to get really sick. So it’s okay.”
So we’re making all these value judgments at the same time, as we’re talking to people about values and trying to tie into their values. Looking at the people who are doing protests right now and people saying, open it no matter what have a high value of authority and not having authority over them and control. Then you have other people who value justice and will stay home regardless of their own inconvenience or their own feelings about their own risk. Because they believe in the justice for other people. And we don’t talk about it in those terms. Those are really sometimes the underlying that we might not even be aware of that we’re bringing into the lens in which we view all this information.
The Story We Tell Ourselves
Rudy: My fear is that there’s a whole lot of magical thinking going on. I don’t know what’s going to happen, and neither does anyone else. But there are a lot of confident people that know what’s going to happen, that there’s a before and after on this, and we’re in near the after. And and I don’t think that’s true. Biologically that’s not true. It’s a nice story. What do you think of the story that we’re telling ourselves right now?
Jana: There’s a difference between information, misinformation and disinformation. Right? So there’s information that is unbiased, and it just gives us the facts. There’s misinformation, which is designed to insert other narratives, and then there’s just information that’s meant to undermine what’s happening. And it’s really hard to discern between those. One of the other interesting things that I’ve read recently is one of the main causes of anxiety is related to lack of control. But what we have is humans going through our heads. It’s not Can I get through today? It’s what does this mean? In the long term? What does it mean next month? What does it mean six months? Am I going to have a job? Am I going to be able to go on my vacation?
Unlike other tragedies that we’ve experienced, they were a moment in time. And we knew when that moment was over. The lack of being able to figure out, when does it end? And what’s the end look like? We don’t even know what it looks like or have a point of reference. And then we talk about is it the new normal? Is that the new abnormal? How do we label it? We’re so anxious to go ahead and label what that new thing is gonna be. Give it a name, to give it a character, to give it something that we can at least find comfort in that. The struggle is, that actually makes it a little bit harder on all of us because we’re trying to rationalize. We’re trying to picture what happens next. And nobody knows.
Case Study: Autism Awareness Campaign
Rudy: I want to talk specifically about a behavior change campaign that we both worked on, and it was a national campaign for the Center for Disease Control & Prevention. It was around autism. About 16 years ago, there was a much different perception of autism than there is now. And pediatricians didn’t know how to diagnose it early on. Parents didn’t know the early signs and Porter Novelli and Creative Outhouse were asked by the CDC to help change that perception. And we did. And over the last 16 years, I think we’ve done a good job. If you’ve been to a pediatrician office in the last 16 years, or you are a pediatrician, if you are a parent of a child, you have seen some of the messaging and work we put together. And Porter Novelli has done a great job nationally in getting that word out. And changing that perception from autism means “Rain Man”, to what we know it to be now. So I want to talk about that and the resistance that we faced early on, and maybe time a little bit on this COVID thing.
Jana: I think one of the pieces that’s really fascinating and looking at this campaign, which is really more of an intervention program than a communication campaign that started off as communication, was it was funded by Congress as an autism awareness campaign. And the first thing that we learned when we went into research was if you put “autism” on a flyer, nobody will read it because it gets into that identity. And there was such a high level of fear. What we did with a health care professionals, even knowing that a child might be at risk for developmental delays, they could be insightful enough know enough about the child and have done everything right. But that fear of telling a parent that that was what they believe was the problem was so strong that they would just say, we’ll wait and see what happens at six months. That six months was crucial in that child’s development.
So the early campaign materials were very different. Looking at parents and what we said to providers, and I love the ad initially that said a four year old with autism was once a three year old with autism was once a two year old with autism.
Rudy: Well, I wrote that.
Jana: You did. Brilliant work.
Messaging for Healthcare Providers & Parents
Jana: But really helping them not see themselves as a bearer of bad news, but as that beacon of hope. Then you could be the person who helps them identify this earlier. And I think that was an instrumental shift in the way not only do we think about it as communication professionals, but how we communicate it to get healthcare professionals to redefine their role in their relationships. It’s not just you’re going to tell them this. It was your role in this story is really different. Let us help you see what that is. That part of that campaign was brilliant.
On the parents side, going back to that idea that the word autism was way too scary, we knew that we had to change the conversation and their role in the story. So their role in the story was not about seeing fear or seeing what their child could do, but helping them understand what normal development looks like. And making them the champions of their kids development that I’m watching for. You are now 90th percentile in height, 70th percentile in weight. Oh, and you’re also babbling on time and you’re having social engagement, pointing to things. Like very simple things that are indicative of your child’s development. So we changed their role from the point of fear to the point of activism, and really being equipped to do the best for their children.
And that redefined the entire scope of how this campaign was about to communicate. Because stories are really important, but also where do you put your hero? And what is the role you give the hero in that story? We had to look at it really differently to be successful.
Rudy: What are some of the things you saw that we developed and you developed that helped really spread the word?
Jana: I think some of the pieces that really were instrumental and they’ve evolved over time, but going back to the genesis of the campaign, was understanding the point of how people really had an image of what autism was. That we had to change the social norm. But it wasn’t enough to tell Parents that you, your child might have a developmental delay, and you need to get medical care and seek early intervention, because there’s the other things that we weigh in all of these decisions.
What will my parents think? What will my colleagues think? What will my friends think? And we put all of that on ourselves and making these decisions. Will they think less of me, or think that there’s something wrong with me – all the things that you could bring to that mental math that we do. So we did simple in execution, but brilliant in their thought, pieces that changed the social norm.
Jana: So one of them was a growth chart. So you put the growth chart on your wall, and as you’re measuring your child’s height, there were comparable things like social skills, emotional skills. There were other pieces so that they could start recognizing that as I’m monitoring these things, this is something else that’s also visual. So other people could see it and know that this is a normal thing that people should be doing. There’s changing the expectations of how we monitor development and talk about it was a really important piece of it.
Behavior Change and Social Norms for COVID-19
Jana: And linking it to an earlier conversation we had about COVID-19. There are social norms around wearing a mask. We don’t know what they are yet. They’re still being defined. They’ve changed drastically in the past four months. We need to figure out how do we make this a truly an expectation that if I do it, I’m okay. The norms have changed because we have different expectations about people’s behavior.
Rudy: Well, that’s what I was going to say. So that was a campaign, again, still ongoing for 16 years. Where we change the narrative? We change the national perception of something that at the time was completely foreign and scary? Again, that perception that there was some defectiveness instead of just differentness. With COVID-19, it’s probably going to be here for a while. We have a desperate mess of messaging. Who’s responsible a for creating some sort of…Well, let me not ask that question.
Jana: That would be the government. Starting with a lack of leadership.
Changing the Narrative for Behavior Change
Rudy: Yeah. We need some leadership. First of all, what is the behavior we want people to engage in? And how do we get them there? How do we take say, caring for your well being and make it normative?
Jana: I’m not a creative. So I don’t have the answer of how we do it.
Rudy: I know a guy.
Jana: I know a really good guy. But I can think about what has to happen. And part of it has to be changing the narrative around wearing masks and those certain behaviors we need to do. Keeping your distance wearing a mask. Washing your hands for 20 seconds, which is a whole lot longer than people think it is. And surface disinfection. And we have to rewrite the narrative around is by doing that, that is a sign of your own personal strength versus a sign of being weak. So by protecting yourself, it’s not because you are more likely to get sick, more likely to be really sick from it, it’s not a sign of weakness, it is actually a sign of strength.
Rudy: So there’s a competency part of everyone’s identity. So everyone has an identity. And it’s all as unique as you are. You’re like a little snowflake. But there are certain pillars and competency is one and strong or even smart. So I’m smart, because I do this. You don’t overtly say it, but if that is the perception, smart people do this. And, of course, as Garrison Keillor pointed out everyone is above average. That is the perception of smart people wear masks, or wash their hands, or a little careful about things, then that becomes the normal.
Jana: It does. Being smart, being strong, and then also figuring out is there a way to turn it into social currency? Social currency is I am now part of something. I am now seen in a higher regard socially because of the behaviors that I have adopted. Because we do care what other people think about us. No matter how much we might deny it, we drastically care about other people’s judgements of us.
Rudy: I read an anthropological study years ago. And the basic notion of this study was, over time, what causes altruistic behavior? And the bottom line was fear of social retribution. So fear of being ostracized by society is the strongest motivator to get us to act like nice people. I know you don’t want to hear that because you’re probably thinking No, I just really love people. I’m not ashamed to admit that I don’t always love people. But certainly I behave myself because it’s the right thing to do. And and I live within a society. And we are all performance artists at some level.
Leadership During COVID-19
Jana: So again, getting back to figuring out how do we reshape and reframe this story from one of weakness of being uninformed, and really putting the people who make good choices in the power position.
Rudy: Yes, well, that is key in a time of crisis and uncertainty. People look to their leaders and say, how do we frame this? You know, and we’re not getting that. Regardless of where in the political spectrum we fall, we’re not getting it. We’re not getting it from our medical institutions, our political leadership, our political parties, different countries. Everybody has a different way we ought to be thinking about this. And meanwhile, we’re like the kids of two arguing parents, you know, whose side do you choose? I don’t know. Just tell me the what I ought to think to make everybody safe and make me feel better.
Jana: It’s interesting, a lot of the points of view and what people react to sometimes as well is when it comes from government or other organizations, they believe have some level of authority, that the messaging that we end up sharing is you should, you should, we should, and we don’t like being told what to do.
Rudy: Oh, we call that Shoulding on People.
Jana: You wrote a blog about it, did you? (Click here to read the blog post) But one of the emergence that you see where the influencers and celebrities and are having a particularly strong voice in this moment in time right now, not that they don’t normally, but specifically around this one issue is that they’re showing us the “We Can” type message and really changing who they’re putting in the subject of the sentence. And it’s not us telling other people what to do, but it’s what we can be doing and delivering the same message from a completely different point of view that resonates completely differently. If you tell, especially Americans, if you tell Americans what they should do, they will do the opposite. Because that is just in our DNA. We do not like being told what we should do. Look back to 1776.
The Narrative of a Pandemic
Rudy: The challenge is, we’re not dealing with anything that’s affected by narrative. We’re dealing with science and a virus. So we keep coming up with stories. 50 people are going to get it. It’s going to go away, things are getting better, we’ve passed the peak. Whatever that story is, we keep telling different stories. Now we have, you know, we got to get back to work. Elon Musk tweeted, give people back their goddamn freedom.
Rudy: We have physicians saying, no, wait a minute, because this can explode and become worse. People are saying Sweden’s doing a great job. People saying Sweden is doing a terrible job.
Jana: People saying Sweden, their socialists, and therefore we should never be like them in January. But now we’re holding Sweden up as the model for how we should behave.
Rudy: I guess my fear is we keep trying to invent a story about something rather than trying to look at what’s actually there. Because this is not something that’s story based. It’s science based. So that’s my concern. And then eventually we really have to be honest with ourselves and say, how many lives are okay to lose? No, that’s an incorrect thing to say. But eventually that’s the question we have to answer, isn’t it?
Jana: It comes down to: there are two opposing sides of an ethical dilemma. Do you choose life and health and safety? Because it’s literally saving people’s lives by what we’re doing? Or do we value people being able to feed their kids? Yeah. And there’s not a good, clean, ethical choice in that one. One has a opposite impact on the other one. And we as a society haven’t really grappled with how do we do this well?
Public Health Messaging
Rudy: Going back to the story and controlling a public message. We have this COVID-19. There’s every message on earth being thrown at us. And we’re in a crucial moment. So there’s a Harvard study that just came out. That basically said, we’re nowhere near ready to open up. They’re saying we should be testing 5 million people a day and we’re at 5 million total. You have people on the other end demonstrating at state houses. There are a lot of messages all over the spectrum. How do you think people are processing this?
Jana: It’s a tough one. In some regards, it is really hard to figure out what is actually happening right now. And part of it is because things are changing daily, and surveys and Nielson reports and all of the data that has been done to help us understand the context of this. It’s phenomenal, but it’s not happening as rapidly as the changes are occurring. I’m a political cynic. A lot of this, I think, is messaging that’s done, because to your point about politics earlier, we believe that if we put it out as a narrative, it will come true. And we do have multiple conflicting problems that need to be solved right now. There’s so many things that if we could rewrite history, should have been done differently.
3 Tenets of Messaging in a Crisis
Jana: But I also believe that what happens in the environment that we are right in now with so many different outlets for news and information, the sensationalized wins the ratings. I think the most important thing that we can think about as brands, and as people putting out messages and trying to do the best for what’s right for society is giving people clear, concise information.
There are three things that we’ve learned from crisis communication, and understanding how to communicate risk in a time of crisis. And people need three things. They need concise information, they need compassion, and they need optimism. And we’re sometimes lacking on all three, and sometimes just different parts of that.
What it means is people need clear definitive information. How many tests are out there? How many people have been tested? There’s a fallacy in testing information in that it doesn’t include the people who are not tested. So we don’t really have an understanding of how many people have this. What’s my likelihood of getting it? I can’t ascertain that personally without data. So we need to be able to communicate that data so people can make justified rational choices about their own risk.
People need compassion, which means not being judged for what you do. Not being told wholeheartedly, this is what you should do or should not do or you’re a bad person. Or a good person if you do one way or the other.
People all need to understand everybody’s going through something. And you need to give people a little bit of grace and speak to them from a point of compassion. I understand what this is hard for everybody.
Politics of Behavior Change
Rudy: So what do you think are some of the beliefs and values that are influencing our behavior and how we are reacting to COVID-19?
Jana: So we have multiple layers of thoughts running through our heads when it comes to behavior change. One layer is political. So if you look at the politics of how they’ve even changed over the past four or five years, it is I will defend my candidate, my party, my person, whether I believe in them or not. And I’m not saying that’s one party or the other. It is ubiquitous. I will believe because, say I voted for that person. If they’re wrong, that makes me wrong. So I’m going to believe a narrative. You have that one superficial layer, but it’s running deep in our decisions.
We also have our beliefs about our own susceptibility. So am I a person who’s likely to get this? I have done certain protections or I don’t do any protections, but I believe that I’m safe. There’s part of our entire reptilian brain that is designed to keep us safe. We can tell ourselves a narrative about how safe we are. We can also believe external factors and let them break into that belief of safety. But something like protecting our own safety is really deep in our decision making.
Rudy: But how, compared to protecting our own ego, is it?
Jana: But then there’s there are other things like so there’s the severity. How likely am I to get really sick? So you see people who are having these conversations that say, I’m on spring break, if I get sick, I get sick, if I die, I die. I’ve lived a good life. I’m 22. Nothing’s gonna happen to me ever. Or if I get it, then I will have immunity. And so then I can go about my own business. Or just let me get it and get it over with because it’s just going to be a cough that it’s going to be annoying.
So we write these narratives that help us rationalize our own decisions more than we let that information drive what our decisions are at times. And then we do have our own ego. We have our own sense of identity. We have our own beliefs about, I have a right as an American. Like looking at the Sweden example, one of the things that they put in place as a policy is that if you’re of a certain age, you have to stay home, you are quarantined. That doesn’t work here. It doesn’t work there either, to be honest. If you look at them, right now, this day, they have I think, 2300 deaths. Half of them are people in elderly care situations, whereas their neighboring country, Denmark has about 200 deaths, so 1/10th the number of deaths. So you could argue that they’re getting their deaths over with all at once? I really don’t know, because we don’t know. We don’t know.
At the same time we have such a huge, strong drive within us that nobody is going to tell me what to do. We have the same argument with motorcycle helmets. Like it doesn’t matter if I get in a motorcycle crash and get hurt, if I haven’t hurt anybody else. Without recognizing, well, you’ve taken up a hospital bed, you have run up insurance rates. We we like to ignore the fact that we are relational creatures and our actions have impact on other people.
Influencing the Ego in Behavior Change Marketing
Rudy: Going back to the ego, we both worked on campaigns for chronic diseases, like diabetes, for example. And, and one of the things that always strikes me is going back to that information isn’t motivation. I’ve talked to endocrinologists, and they will sit there and tell their patients, if you don’t change your behavior, if you don’t monitor your sugar, if you don’t start taking insulin, if you don’t lose weight, you’re going to go blind. You’re going to lose your feet, you’re going to be impotent, your body’s going to shut down. All these horrible things, and people do not change their behavior. Some do. Many don’t. And one of the reasons is If I do what you tell me to do, I’m admitting that I was wrong.
Jana: That’s a very strong motivator. It’s one of the things that we talk about internally about certain behaviors, particularly with chronic disease or with the immunization. To tell people that the pieces they’ve put in place to rationalize their bad behavior, that they have put themselves or somebody else at risk has a really hard breaking of that person’s identity and ego. And they’d rather die and lose their feet and all that than admit, yeah, I need to change my behavior, or that I am responsible, and I have done this to myself.
Rudy: I was going to actually go back to how companies not in our space are communicating this. And you wrote something to me. You said the expectations of consumers is one of interaction and influence. We have to get beyond thinking comments on a Facebook posts means engagement and affinity for brand. We look for proxies and those proxies drive our behavior, but they may not be the right ones. So tell me more.
Jana: So I was in a conversation with a global brand in February. And one of the pieces we were talking about redesigning the entire interface I have with their customer base. And the discussion was hub and spoke is dead. So we need to move from hub and spoke to omni channel. And it’s great. It’s a really interesting discussion as we as communicators over time have really embraced this hub and spoke model. The communication has come from a centralized location off to other things. And then we measure everything by how much of those circles going outside of the hub. Do we have the right paid strategy and the right PR strategy and everything? But it’s driving it back to the owned. Is omni channel the future where marketing needs to go?
Thinking about multiple platforms, but how they all lead to one core narrative. And for me thinking about it, I don’t really believe that the framework and how you draw the hierarchy on the paper matters nearly as much as what you have as a central theme. So when you look at a hub and spoke model, how it started, but as we need to drive everybody back. All actions should link back to our website. How many people come to our website? How many people stay on our website? How many people then go on to our Facebook page and comment and like, and that shows how much they like us? And does that drive them back to our own message?
Marketing to Gen Z and Gen Alpha Consumers
I have a Gen Z child and a Gen Alpha child. And one of the pieces that I looked at, in trying to understand trends, and watching my Gen Alpha child at age two, he walks up to the television screen and tries to swipe it. From his very beginning he expects the world to respond to him. And I don’t think marketers are really prepared for that type of environment. So just a little bit more trend searching to figure out how to do it. Look at Travel patterns. Gen Alpha kids do not expect their parents to surprise them with a vacation. They expect their parents to tell them that they’re going on vacation, and then help plan it. Because they’ve watched YouTube. They know what those cities are. They know what those destinations are. They have opinions. And they expect to be engaged in it because they have access to information in ways that we growing up never did. And so to be a brand to think about, alright, well how do I get people back to my own stuff? How do I control the dialogue? How do I control the narrative? How do I just hope that they’ll comment and say this is really great or share it is not how my children expect brands to interact with them.
The Branding of Schitt’s Creek
One of the best examples I’ve seen of like even busting the whole idea of hub and spoke versus Omni channels you look at Schitt’s Creek. It’s a great television show and it has to have quality products at the core of it which it does, but they have made so many veins coming off of the brand that their fan base can just run with. So one of their Instagram channels or personalities they put up was Moira Rose’s Word of the Day. So Moira Rose’s character speaks in high English, uses words from other countries, shows how well traveled and educated she is.
Rudy: Brilliantly played by Catherine O’Hara.
Jana: So she shows her personality being better than everybody through her language. Well, they started Moira Rose’s Word of the Day on Instagram. And they post the things that she says and explain it to the rest of us what that actually meant in real words, in common language, One day they made a grammatical mistake and got hammered on Instagram for it. And then the next morning they posted “We’re sorry, we do these 5am and obviously we are not Moira Rose”. So therefore, it’s like they had fun with the people who respond to them. They’re starting a relationship with people. Thank you for pointing this out. Please don’t hold us accountable to that high standard. We are not that wonderful. They also had a character and he has a publicist. And when the Moira Rose stared in a movie, they had a fake platform, Interflix that produced this movie, right? A whole Twitter page dedicated to Interflix, that promoted the movie that interacted with the characters and it brought on its own life.
It’s brands being comfortable with people running with their brand and understanding that at the center, hub and spoke model should be your brand. Not your message, not your keywords, not your very controled voice. But how do we create opportunities for people to take who we are and own it themselves and reinforce in their own language because that’s a very long way of saying consumers are expecting brands to go.
Conclusion and Thanks
Rudy: Jana, we can go on about behavior change all day. But you have a call. But thanks so much for doing this. Thanks for being on the show.
Jana: Hey, I appreciate talking about this and the conversation has been delightful.
Rudy: Yeah, we’re gonna keep talking but just not recording.
Hey, thanks for listening. You can reach Jana on LinkedIn at Jana Leigh Thomas. To get the show notes and previous episodes of Marketing Upheaval, go to CreativeOuthouse.com/podcast. Thank you all for listening. And remember, if the current state of marketing has got you confused, don’t worry. It’ll all change. See ya.
Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org and we’ll send you a free vinyl sticker featuring our Marketing Upheaval cover art.