Erin Kissane podcast interview: editorial strategy, web magazines and trolls
In Episode 4 of the Together London Podcast, I talk to Erin Kissane about what she learned editing A List Apart magazine, her book The Elements of Content Strategy, why she started Contents Magazine, and what we can do about the problem of harassment online. Follow Erin on twitter @kissane.
Listen to the podcast
Read the transcript
Jonathan Kahn: I’m speaking to Erin Kissane all the way from Brooklyn. She was the editor of A List Apart magazine for many years. She’s worked with companies like Happy Cog Studios and Brain Traffic as a content strategist. She’s the editor of Contents magazine, and she’s the author of The Elements of Content Strategy. Erin, thanks for joining us.
Erin Kissane: Oh, thank you so much for including me. This is lovely.
Jonathan: I want to start off by talking about how we first met on the Internet, which was back in 2007.
Jonathan: I was a web developer who’d never really done anything online, like a blog or anything like that. I decided I wanted to write an article, so I submitted a draft to A List Apart magazine, and you were the editor. I remember you being really patient with me, taking me through about three different rewrites. I was really amazed that someone would spend so much time on helping someone on the Internet to get their writing together and get it out there. Eventually, it got published. First of all, thank you for that.
Jonathan: My question is, how did helping so many people at A List Apart influence the work you’ve done in content strategy?
Erin: That’s a very sweet way to put the question. I really want to say, thank you. That’s the thing about these web publications is that we rely on writers being generous with their time. You framed it as helping writers, but for me it always felt like you and other people who were writing for us were helping us make a magazine, too. A List Apart was my first editorial job and I was there for almost 10 years. I would say really the first five at least were very much, for me, about learning the trade by doing.
I came in initially as a proofreader, and then learned to edit copy. And then, there’s a much longer learning process that involves moving from line editing to being able to help people construct arguments while still maintaining their own voice and all of those things.
I was working with Jeffrey Zeldman, who is actually quite a good editor and very sensitive to those things. I feel that all of those experiences at A List Apart and all of those hundreds of articles are really how I learned to do the core thing that I do.
I’m quite grateful for the experience. It was really, really lovely for me. And also, I think, has absolutely influenced everything else I do because I always come back to those concerns for how we serve the reader in all of my other content work. That shaped a lot of who I am now.
Jonathan: It’s funny you say that, because I had always thought of you as someone who had always been an editor and was like lending your existing mastery to A List Apart, and then I read something where you said actually, “This is where I cut my teeth.” I was really surprised by that.
Erin: Editors, it turns out, are also made rather than born. I had done a lot of writing in school and I had expected to probably go into some form of publishing after school. But then I got lured away by the web, which is so exciting for so many reasons. And so, I had always had that sort of inclination, but it turns out that the inclination is quite different from the actual skills involved and just having worked through dozens and hundreds of arguments. So, yeah, it was tremendously helpful for me.
Jonathan: In a similar time frame to you doing that, you were also editorial director for Happy Cog Studios, in New York City, which was founded by Jeffrey Zeldman.
Jonathan: I’m interested in what content strategy meant for you, at that time, and how the work with Happy Cog influenced what you’re doing now.
Erin: Yeah. Well, I guess the first thing is that I didn’t call it content strategy when I was there until nearly the end of my time there. We mostly talked about it as editorial strategy. The thing about Happy Cog, especially when Happy Cog New York was…and this was before Happy Cog became the multi-armed creature that it is now. [laughs] It was a small group of us. It was Jeffrey, who comes from the ad world, and is an excellent writer. Jason Santa Maria, who, of all the designers I can think of, is one of the most sensitive, really, to the concerns of designing for content. His web typography work has, I think, emerged very naturally from that concern for communication in design.
Liz Danzico was our information architect. Liz now runs the master’s in interaction design for the School of Visual Arts and has been an editor, herself.
So when I came in, I was joining a group that was very concerned with text, and with editorial work, and with content. Although I was, in some ways, the avatar of content on that team, it was a very collaborative process. I think my presence there, and my increasing involvement in client work as the years went on was really, purely a result of the changing problems that clients approached Happy Cog with.
The very first things that I started doing with Happy Cog were editorial style guides and some copywriting, and things like that, as many of us started with. Content strategy was actually being done, I know, officially as a practice at that time, on a different scale in other organizations, but what I was doing, mostly I thought of as editorial work.
Then the clients problems began to change or they began to realize that they had different problems than they’d realized that they had. We began to encounter projects where there was a multinational company that was working in half a dozen languages, and had 3,000 pages of content with no real sense of what was working and what wasn’t.
We had to develop ways of helping them address those problems and ask the right questions and then figure out how to answer those questions. The thing that I do now as content strategy, for me at least emerged very naturally from the problems that we encountered in client work. By the time I left Happy Cog they were officially doing content strategy as a practice that’s sort of firmed up by now.
It really did develop, for me from a pretty purely editorial perspective that was done in conjunction with a user-centered design process and with a group of people who were very concerned with accessibility and really cared about the humans on the other side of the computer. That’s the hybrid practice that I came to at Happy Cog.
Jonathan: It’s interesting to hear you say that the clients had changing problems, or brought you changing problems. I wonder if a part of that sort of Happy Cog success and that type of work was maybe to do with the fact that either people felt able to share more deeply what their problem was with Happy Cog, or Happy Cog was better able to respond to that beyond what had previously considered a web design brief.
Erin: Sure. I had never really thought about it that way but I know if you come into a meeting with a four person team like ours, I know that it was the case that if someone mentioned an editorial concern, all of us were interested in what that was. We all understood that if you didn’t have the editorial stuff worked out, if you didn’t know where your content was going to come from, that was going to trip you up later. Just because we’d all run into that ourselves. I think it is probably true that our editorial bent as a group led to getting more of that kind of work.
As I think all of us who have done consulting have eventually learned, so much of it is about being able to follow the pain. What is hurting the client organization, what they’re struggling with. I think we recognized, perhaps, pretty easy the editorial injuries that we were seeing.
Jonathan: Yeah, fantastic. In 2011, you write the “Elements of Content Strategy” for A Book Apart, so we’ve now covered almost all the prongs of Zeldman’s empire here. You manage to actually define what it is, what content strategy is, where it came from and you also show how to do it and it’s in this incredibly short book. So if anyone hasn’t read it, you really have to go straight to the website and get the e-book or buy the paper book. Why did you decide to write this book?
Erin: Well, I’m going to say one easy thing first which is just to protect those who are listening to the podcast, don’t buy it from Amazon. They’re resellers who are selling it for vastly more than it costs from our actual website, so just get it direct.
Jonathan: Abookapart.com. Is that right?
Erin: Yeah, just don’t be price gouged. Thank you, Jonathan, for the very kind phrasing about it.
Erin: I felt a couple of years ago that we were as a loosely defined practice, at a turning point because it felt like the practices were starting to gel. We had all, many of us at least, discovered that we were working on the same kind of problems and using similar practices. I had developed something that I was calling a content template. Brain Traffic, that I wasn’t working with yet, had developed something very similar entirely separately that they were using called a page table. We began to realize we’re all kind of inventing our own wheels and they were all shaped by all of our various backgrounds and things. But it felt like an interesting moment.
The books that publishers that I’d spoken to before A Book Apart had still been sort of more on the web writing side or the by numbers, can you make something that’s how you do content strategy step by step by step, very practical. That’s a very useful thing to do and I’m very happy to say I’m seeing those kinds of things come out and be written and it’s wonderful. It wasn’t really the thing that I most wanted to do.
Then when I spoke with A Book Apart, they were very interested, all of them and especially Mandy Brown, the Editor there, in having a book that took a step back and looked at what our shared principles are, what our shared aims are, how we can develop even a shared vocabulary, when we are all coming from such different places.
They were very supportive of that, even though we all knew that it wasn’t going to sell as quickly or as widely as something that was more like a content strategy workbook. They were incredibly supportive of that, I think, tricky project. Mandy was very, very helpful in helping me formulate the right balance of how you do it with what it is.
Something that all of us were concerned with was that, as content strategy was exploding over those few years, we saw people coming in from marketing and from publishing and a few wandering in a little bit from journalism. There were a lot of people, with technical communication backgrounds, wondering if it had much to do with what they did.
Some of those voices are louder than others. That is lovely. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have more to contribute or are more about the core of content strategy than the others.
Jonathan: I want to talk about this bit in your book, where you just define the four places that we come from. That was my “aha” moment, when I was reading it. They are the editor, the curator, the marketer and the information scientist. Can you talk about those four things?
Erin: Sure. Absolutely. I think, for me, the editorial work being where I most come from, felt really obvious. But, when I would speak with people who were coming from somewhere else, it wasn’t necessarily clear how things that I thought of as content that emerges from a publishing, editorial process is different from documentation or something like that. I knew that I wanted to talk about those things. There was quite a bit of conversation, at the time, and still is, about how content strategy works as a tool that marketers might use. But those conversations weren’t necessarily connected. They also, I think, left out or were separate from the very large and very fruitful conversation that comes from technical communication, from the information science side that deals with the complexities of structured content and intelligent content and metadata and all of these things.
Then there was also this discussion about what it means to do curation, to care for content, to collect content and all of those things. This was actually the part of the book, with which I struggled the most. I wanted to try to collect some of the foundational ideas from each of those fields that applied to content strategy and then connect how those fit with these central principles about serving the reader.
How do they fit with working to serve the user? How can we use those things to develop a synthesis? Knowing that we are all going to do a slightly different kind of content strategy, what is the commonality? That was the aim at least. Again, Mandy Brown was very helpful in shaping those things. [laughs]
Jonathan: [laughs] As far as I’m concerned, it was incredibly successful. One of the things that is so challenging about talking about content strategy is what you are saying, people are coming from doing very, very, very different things, which they may be calling content. I find it difficult to get that common discussion starting point, where everyone is starting from the same place. The way you said, instead of saying, “I am a marketer.”, or, “I am an editor.” Why don’t we say that there are these four different areas that have been doing similar types of activities separately for long time? What we are doing now probably requires us to be aware of all four bits.
Jonathan: I think you are just that kind of theorist, who is able to pull it together.
Jonathan: When you say it, it’s obvious. I think that was one of the things that blew me away in the book, that and the fact that you managed to write what seems like a definitive guide in an incredibly small number of pages.
Erin: I should confess that I actually wrote something three times as long as the book. No one else but me has seen most of that. [laughs] I don’t even know anymore what it is. To write a short thing, you often have to write a much longer thing.
Jonathan: Right. Well, there you go.
Erin: And carve it away. [laughs]
Jonathan: That is almost like a side point, although it’s probably more something in which you are interested. A Book Apart has created a smaller format of book, which is incredibly useful for a reader.
Erin: Yes. We see a lot of books. There is a mathematical formula that traditional large publishers, who work in traditional ways, have to follow to make the economics of publishing work. It usually means that you have to have a book that is over a particular length in order to be substantial enough to sell for enough to pay all of the various components that go into this assembly. I had worked as a book editor before. I was familiar with that economic formula. The extraordinary thing that I think “A Book Apart” has managed to pull off is that they have recognized that there is tremendous value to the reader in concision, in something that is efficient, that you can consume quickly, and it doesn’t have anything fluffy, doesn’t have extra. So it is just the meat of the idea.
They had found a way to make that work economically so that they could actually do this shorter format. I think, especially for this single, professional topic that has been extremely valuable to me, just looking at the other books in the series. I see a lot of things that start out as TED talks and then eventually develop into trade books.
I really wish that there was something more like A Book Apart for those books. You see something that has obviously been difficult to flesh out into what we think of as a full-length book. But it would have been a brilliant short book. It would have been fantastic at 80 pages. [laughs] So that’s helpful.
Jonathan: It’s interesting that you mention TED. I think TED is so interesting, because it is this idea that you would put so much effort into a talk that you would be able to give it 18 minutes. Then you would actually share it with an audience of potentially five million people, watching it on the Internet, who would never commit to a 45 minute video. That is so interesting. I think that is something that has already been formative on our culture, if you look at the ideas that they have managed to get around the world. That is an editorial thing, isn’t it? It’s saying, “I have an idea, which is quite long. I’m going to work very, very hard to make it shorter.”
Erin: Yes, absolutely. Also, there is this funny side effect, which is that the expectations of presenters outside of TED are now quite different than they were a few years ago, because everyone has seen a dozen or so TED talks. So, people who are quite shy, who might prefer to read a paper, now are pushed a little bit harder to do a more dramatic presentation [laughs] and to move toward the TED style, which I think is just interesting as a sideline. They made a great editorial choice to tune their talks for a short attention span and put everything online. That worked exceptionally well for them. I wish that they would develop an equally brilliant book series that would be a good home for the best of those ideas. But, yeah. They haven’t brought me on to do that yet. [laughs]
Jonathan: OK. Well, if you’re listening, TED, you know where to reach Erin.
Jonathan: I want to talk to you about your latest publication, which is Contents Magazine, which you founded last autumn, with Krista Stevens, Erik Westra and Ethan Marcotte. I think, when I read the second piece that you published, I tweeted that it’s going to be one of those publications, where you have to read every single article. You may as well just automatically make it go into Instapaper or whatever it is.
Jonathan: You have kept that up, up until now.
Erin: Thank you.
Jonathan: The Masthead says, “Contents is a new magazine at the intersection of content strategy, online publishing and new school editorial work.” Can you tell us what that means and explain why you guys started Contents?
Erin: Sure. It’s a bit clunky, isn’t it, as a description? [laughs] I think it is sort of suitably clunky.
Jonathan: OK. Cool.
Erin: It brings to the surface this thing, with which we have been wrestling. That will probably not be our tagline forever.
Jonathan: Yeah. It’s not really in the Masthead. I just said that, because it sounded more straightforward. I saw that it wasn’t embedded in the magazine. But it’s a nice way to open the conversation, I think.
Erin: [laughs] No, absolutely. We have wrestled with that. How do you define what this thing is that we are trying to do? Essentially, it really is very much about trying to find the commonalities again, to look at not just content strategy, which is itself a hybrid field and assembly of all these different things, but also, if we then zoom out and see content strategy as one circle among many that are working on similar communication problems and trying to develop ideas in parallel, in many cases, without knowing about each other’s work. It’s also looking at what is going on in journalism, what is going on and what we have been thinking of as publishing, even as publishing becomes something we are all doing, what is going on in the Academy. There is something called digital humanities that is quite directly related to a lot of our content concerns. We see a lot going on with data and data interpretation.
Digital humanities often bring to that the perspective of the humanist. How can you be a data humanist? There are all of these things going on. Of course, there is also this vast number of technical communication folks, who are mostly talking to each other and who are sometimes a little bit peeved that we haven’t caught on yet to the things they have been talking about for 10 years longer than we have, having to do with structured content and so on.
When you look at all of those things, or when I do, I find it tremendously frustrating that we are not all talking to each other, because it’s fairly clear that we could get all of us smarter, more quickly, and do better work for our readers, for the people we are making these things for, if we can learn from each other.
So, we made Contents as much of anything as a space for those conversations to cross pollinate. That is what we are really looking for. They are ways of bringing in ideas from these currently separate fields that are articulated in a way that makes them open to others, that don’t use purely jargon that appeals only to one readership, that are willing to explain assumptions intrinsic to a field.
We have had writers that are very generous about this, who will break down things that seem extremely obvious to them, but that are quite opaque to people outside of their field. That’s very much what we are trying to accomplish. We just published our 30th article. [laughs] It feels like we started about two months ago. I know we haven’t. It was startling to me. We have just started with Issue four.
I think we share a lot of the ethic or maybe the aesthetic that I associate with open source as a software movement. We are very interested in collaboration and information sharing. If you have to pick between competition and collaboration, we will always be on the side of collaboration, purely because we think it works better.
There will always be aspects that are competitive. But, on this larger scale, connecting people working on similar problems, it seems to us will make all of those teams better. That’s the goal we have taken on. It’s a messy one. But this is a live experiment, I would say, in what it takes to get all of these fields, a little better connected to each other.
Jonathan: I can see a theme there, in your work, all the time I have been following you really. We have these new tools, which allow things that were previously impossible to happen. But our culture was created a very, very long time ago. We still operate mostly within that culture, which has the assumptions of previous eras. What we end up doing is, although we could technically do loads of stuff, we don’t. That’s more of a people problem, or a culture problem than a tech problem.
Erin: Yeah. I think that’s a good way of putting it. I realized how core this sort of assumption of openness is to me. The other day I was talking about another project of mine, which is called Source. It is a project for the Knight-Mozilla Foundation. It is a journalism tech, bring those two communities together kind of project.
Jonathan: A mash up.
Erin: This is what I do, apparently, is work between fields. I was speaking with Andrew Phelps, who is a journalist at Nieman Lab. He was trying to get me to explain the Source project. That is a project to connect people, who do code in newsrooms around the world. He was saying, “Isn’t it true that what you guys are making is something that will just…it’s about encouraging people, who work in newsrooms, to steal from each other?”
Erin: I was like, “Well, yes. That’s wonderful. We don’t think of it as stealing, though, and neither do the people who are doing the code.” They are making open source stuff. They come from a background that lets them see the advantage to information sharing. Even though they may work in news organizations that still think purely in terms of competition and stealing, the people, who are doing the technical work, already know better. They are already doing this sharing. We just want to make it more open and more efficient. I think that’s very much the core of what we try to do at Contents. We know that the people, who are doing the work in all of these organizations, are already starting to look beyond their fields and trying to find and take the ideas that are most useful to them, develop them, and do some work in public and show what they are developing.
We know that is already going on at the ground level. Now it’s just a question of making it more explicit.
Jonathan: Fantastic. OK. I want to talk now about the less happy part of your work really. We have been talking about collaborating. I want to talk about online communities and conferences. You have recently blogged on Incisive.nu about the problem of harassment online, especially against women. You had done an article, where you describe a really horrific example of harassment. Instead of just saying this is bad, you say one of the things we need to do is to actually love our attackers. You channel Martin Luther King. Can you explain all of that and how that relates to the communities we are building online?
Erin: Certainly. Well, I probably can’t explain it. But I can try to talk about my own path there and what I’m trying to do. In the spirit of working in public, I’m trying to make public my own struggle with these things. So, if it’s helpful to others, that’s phenomenal. It’s actually quite relevant to my headspace today. It was a bit of a difficult weekend, because I became aware of a couple of instances of harassment and stalking in a couple of different conferences, in which I’m involved. One is in the tech world and one is in the literary, book world that I’m interested in. I’m seeing some of the fallout from that.
One thing that I want to say is that, in the post that I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I tried to talk about things that are practical, that we can do. I tried to take a very practical approach in that. I think, when we are dealing with large groups, who are hostile to us, and when I say us in this case, I mean women. But it’s not just limited to women. It’s certainly an issue that you see in race and that you see all over.
I think that we have a number of options as individuals, when we encounter this stuff. I don’t ever want to even come close to suggesting that I think people, who are attacked, have a responsibility to respond in a particular way. I don’t. I think that people, who respond to attacks with anger, are justified. But I also think that there is something useful and practical in attempting to formulate compassionate responses. In some cases, I think that is much easier to do, when you are standing on the sidelines.
I have been extraordinarily fortunate. I don’t actually know why. I’m not Internet famous. But I do speak at conferences. I am a bit in public and I have been, myself, quite fortunate to see mostly positive responses to my work. The trolling that I do get and the bits of hate mail and things have all been really quite minimal. I’m trying to take advantage of that, the fact that I have mostly been spared the worst of it and try to formulate useful ways of supporting my friends and my colleagues, who have gone through these awful experiences.
But I’m also trying to build effective, humane responses that we can have as a community. Something that I think is really important to note is, I’ve been trying to talk about love. That makes a lot of people nervous, for good reason. I think.
Something that a number of women wrote to me, after that post went up, was, “Are you saying that we respond to suggestions of violence by saying, “I love you.”? If we do, what is that going to cost us in the world?” I don’t want to prescribe anything like that.
When we are building communities and when we are running conferences and all of those things, I think one of the most important expressions of compassion for the community and of a loving approach, is to take care of the group as well as the individuals. That, very frequently, means certainly, if someone is making threats, if you know someone, who is behaving in a harassing way or all of these things, you have to protect the community from that person.
What happens after, on a more individual level I think, is a bit trickier. This is where we get into dicey areas. I want to say, as individuals, when we are in public and we respond to instances of trolling, of harassment, when someone or an organization has done something horrible. We’re not just speaking to them.
When we go after them online, when we decide how we’re going to approach that person, we are being also seen by so many others who are, themselves, trying to formulate how to function in the world that we live in, much of which is online.
And so, for those of us who aren’t in the direct line of fire, and for those of us who aren’t taking care of the crisis, who aren’t working on how do you remove someone who is harassing. How do you protect people from media attack?
I think we have an opportunity to educate and to be compassionate. Not a responsibility, but an opportunity, that may be our best shot at salvaging these relationships. Not necessarily with the people who are actually perpetuating the attacks, but with the people who are watching.
Jonathan: One of your points was that there are lots of people who, in this, even in the case study that you gave, who must have been watching and saying nothing. I suppose what you’re saying was if there were 300 people who were modeling a different response then it might help these bystanders to be less bystanders and more active, and more upholding whatever values the community hopefully had.
Erin: Yeah, absolutely. There are a couple of things. There are the people who think it’s bad to attack people online, who think it’s not good to carry out these coordinated troll attacks and things, but don’t say anything. Then there are people who are watching who haven’t really developed an allegiance yet. The incident that I wrote about in the blog post was in the gaming world. You know you have literally a lot of 14 year olds and 16 year olds who are watching this stuff and learning how to be a human online.
For those of us who are adults and who see this, that is in fact our responsibility to say, “No, this doesn’t represent our community.” Whether it’s the gaming community, or the tech world, or whatever it is. This is not the world we want. That’s the easy part, maybe.
Jonathan: The interesting thing about that for me is if you think about a 14 year old who’s in school, they have quite a rigid concept of the types of social structures they’re in within that school, whether they’re in a gang of kids or whatever after school. Those cultures are known to them and almost static, whereas this is a type of culture, an online forum, where we’re still working all of that stuff out What I hear you saying is the opportunity or the responsibility is to say, “I acknowledge that this is new. The existing social norms can’t possibly work because the dynamics…The technicalities of how an online community works are so different.” And so, we need to think about this stuff. We can change…We can definitely create communities where this stuff is less bad. It’s about taking responsibility for it, I think it’s really interesting.
Erin: This is where it ties back into what we do as makers. Those of us who are making communities who are developing platform, who are even just moderating comments. We have a choice, and the choices we make in the design of our systems and in the choices we make as community moderators and so on. And also as members of those communities who model behavior. Those all really matter. For instance, we are finally beginning to see news organizations take more responsibility for what happens in the comments sections of their websites. Not all of them. They came in with the idea that to moderate comments was censorship and that went against their journalistic ethics and had to…That idea that they brought in from the previous world crashed into what happens when you have an unmoderated community on the web, which is YouTube comments, which is the worst things. There are browser plug ins to block YouTube comments because they are uniformly horrible.
But you see news organizations begin to realize, actually we do have responsibility for what goes on here. Our choice not to moderate is still a choice and it results in the kind of community we don’t want. So I really want to see those of us who build platforms, who do content work, who do web design work take responsibility for the communities that we shape because our choices really do affect those conversations. If we create tools and systems for civil conversation that protect people from attacks that create respectful communities, that should be one of the goals of our work.
I feel quite strongly.
Jonathan: I think that’s one of the services you’re doing here, is speaking for myself, I don’t come across that many stories of online harassment. I’ve never been the subject of online harassment. So to read from people like yourself or other people I follow on Twitter, just to be told this is going on and it’s a problem is actually really, really important because it’s so easy for people to never…Either to ignore it or never hear about it.
Erin: Yeah, and I think the thing that I forget is that it isn’t visible to everyone. I, for instance, follow on Twitter a number of people who write about this thing, who are journalists who follow these stories, and so on. It seems very apparent to me, when one of these things happens, my social networks fill up with that and I forget that it’s not necessarily accessible to others. A number of English newspapers have recently been covering the experience of their female journalists or their female commentators and the fact that they get a much different kind of hate mail than do their columnists and opinion writers and journalists who are male.
It’s one of those conversations that has been opaque until now, but once a few of them began to talk about it, began to talk about what they encounter, then many, many more came forward and said, “This is also what I see. I also receive death threats. I receive threats against my children because I wrote an opinion that someone disagreed with, not even on a particularly controversial or important topic.”
Getting the conversations out where we can all see them is something I forget that we need to do, but does absolutely need to happen. I think getting those conversations in front of the people who make the platforms is maybe one of the most important things.
I very much hope that there are people at Google who are looking at these things, who are seeing the results of the systems that they’ve built. I know that there must be people at Facebook who are doing the same thing, who are building comment systems. Connecting those dots is something we could probably all get better at.
Jonathan: Fantastic. Well, Erin, thank you so much for joining me today. It’s been a fantastic interview.
Erin: Thank you.
Jonathan: I’ve really, really enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Erin: Wonderful to talk to you Jonathan, as always. Thanks so much for having me on.