John Gilfeather on Craft, Ethics, and Research Legacy

In this episode of the Greenbook Podcast, Karen Lynch speaks with John Gilfeather, President of John Gilfeather & Associates and 2026 Market Research Council Hall of Fame inductee for Lifetime Achievement. John reflects on a career that spans Yankelovich, Roper, TNS, Logica Research, and his own consultancy, sharing lessons from decades of B2B, public affairs, corporate reputation, and public-release research.

The conversation explores what makes research “good,” why mentorship matters, and how industry disruptions—from telephone to online to AI—have changed the craft. John also offers a thoughtful warning about preserving questionnaire quality, human judgment, and client impact as the insights industry evolves.

Key Discussion Points:

• John’s early career at Yankelovich and the foundations of serious, craft-driven research
• The role of corporate reputation research in shaping stakeholder behavior
• How methodologies have evolved from in-person interviews to phone, online, and AI-enabled research
• Why “good research” must help clients make better decisions
• Mentorship, industry ethics, and the importance of training the next generation of researchers

Resources & Links:

• Market Research Council Hall of Fame

You can reach out to John Gilfeather on LinkedIn.

Many thanks to John Gilfeather for being our guest. Thanks also to our production team and our editor at Big Bad Audio.

Transcript

Karen: Hello everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Greenbook Podcast. I’m hosting today, it’s Karen Lynch. I’m so happy to be here today, talking to John Gilfeather. He’s currently the president of John Gilfeather & Associates, but we’re here to talk about an honor that’s being bestowed on him in just a few weeks, by the time this episode airs.

He is our 2026 Market Research Council Hall of Fame inductee for Lifetime Achievement. And I’m going to have him tell you all about that shortly, but let’s just say he’s a veteran insights leader with a career spanning senior roles at—we’ll get into this—but Yankelovich, Roper Public Affairs, TNS, Logica Research, Koski Research, and of course his own organization. So, before we get too deep into that, I just want to take a moment and say, John, welcome to the Greenbook Podcast.

John: Well, thank you very much for having me. It’s a real honor to be here.

Karen: I’m so glad, I’m so glad. So, I’m going to just take a pause and ask you to just tell the audience a little bit more about yourself by way of any introduction you’d like, and then we’re going to dig into some aspects of your career that I’m anxious to dig into. So, how would you describe the work that you do?

John: Well, I’m a business-to-business researcher at heart, not a consumer researcher. I’ve done very little consumer work, although I have done a lot of public affairs and research that’s done for public release that supports a marketing campaign or something like that. I got my start at Yankelovich in 1969, and I was there for 30 years, under the theory that you should change jobs every 30 years. And I haven’t been able to last any place else that long. But we—Yakulovich was a great company.

It doesn’t exist anymore. Or the name doesn’t exist; pieces of it are still around, but it was a great company. Wonderful people, very, very smart people. And when I left Yankelovich, I went to Roper Starch Worldwide at the time, and also a great, great company, great people, lots of friends there. And then I went to TNS, and they were bought by Kantar.

And I left there and was hired by Koski Research, which is now Logica Research. They changed their name. And Lilah Raynor, you know, gave me a chance at an advanced age to keep doing things, so we had a lot of fun doing that work. A lot of, also, was research for public release for Schwab and a bunch of other, mostly financial companies. So, that brings—and then I have my own company now, cleverly named John Gilfeather & Associates.

Karen: Very clever, yes [laugh].

John: And I’m doing work for an electronic B2B publisher who has publications in various verticals, CFOs, CIOs, supply chain executives, biopharma, a bunch of other things, and they have journalists who write questionnaires, and most of these—and they do studies among their subscriber base for each of the verticals. So, it’s a really cool sample source, and they have journalists who write the questionnaires. I edit them. And I got to say that, it’s over the past few years, the quality has really gotten very much, much better. And then I write up what I would call a top-line analysis of the results, a fairly short questionnaires, about 20 questions. You know, so it keeps you busy. I’m practicing the craft that I love, and making a few bucks out of it.

Karen: Yeah. Well, and you know, when you say the craft that you love, I just want to go back to—and we talked about this when we first logged on, folks, so this isn’t the first time John is hearing me say this, but when you start your career in this industry at a firm like Yankelovich—who many of you who are of a younger generation than myself and John, you may not know—they kind of, you know, they kind of are the foundation of so much of what we do. And same with, you know, Roper, you know, kind of opinion polling and this public opinion research. When you were being educated, for me, it was in the 80s with my degree, you know, the Yankelovich Monitor, this polling was baked into my education as the source of information, as kind of, the gold standards of what people were trying to achieve with research methodologies. And I mean, everything about it was not just gold standard research, but also what we turned to as credible, solid sources of information, kind of, paving the way for others to emulate, and just highly respected methodological resources for everyone, you know?

Anyway, I can’t say enough about that, as the, as trusted sources of information. Some was proprietary, obviously, but some was also, you know, kind of sold and shared with academic institutions. So, you know, hats off, John. And I think that’s probably why you stayed there 30 years. Granted, it was a time when people did stay, but also really credible institutions. So, I’d love for you to talk more about what it felt like to work for organizations that were really foundational to the entirety of the industry, at least this niche.

John: Yeah, Yankelovich was really good. I was hired at such a low level that my business card didn’t even have a title on it. And I worked mostly on, as I said, on the B2B side—it was called industrial research then—and we had a group of interviewers who were retired executives who could call up executives that we wanted to interview, make an appointment, and do the interview in person. And so, I was making so little money that I did a lot of these interviews, too, because I were cheaper than the senior counsel. And so, it exposed me to a lot of things, a lot of different people, financial community people, and as I said, it was all in person, so if there were ten interviews to do on a study and they were in ten different cities, I went to ten different cities. But I mean, I’ve met some just amazing people, who were, you know, top level at corporations and other organizations.

The people at Yankelovich were unbelievable. Dan Yankelovich, whom I never worked with that closely, but Florence Skelly was an absolute genius, and Arthur White, who was, kind of, the business mind of the organization was one of my key mentors. I mean, I worked for him until he left the firm, basically. And so, it was something. I mean, the other mentors I had were so professional, so you know, and I could sit at, you know, at the shoulder or at the elbow of Jane O’Donnell who was one of the pioneers in the industry she worked for Curtis Publishing—and learned the—literally—learned the craft. And we’d go through questionnaires and write them together. And you know, it’s just something that I still love. 

Karen: What do you remember, kind of, or have a feeling for some of the lessons from those mentors at that time? What were the, kind of, pinnacle values or beliefs that people had that they instilled in you that maybe you still carry with you today?

John: First of all, the importance of doing serious research. I mean, Yankelovich, that was the great thing about Yankelovich. We really did very serious research. I mean, the Yankelovich Monitor, which started shortly after I joined, was Florence Skelly’s brainchild, and it was serious, and a lot of the strategic work we did was very serious. It wasn’t trivial, it wasn’t—you know, not much basic package goods type research, which is serious, but trying to figure out the social trends and what’s happening and what’s in, what’s out.

And then also the generational changes, which Yankelovich, and you know, is still doing. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman, you know, wrote books about generational change and generational differences. So, it was really very exciting. And on the B2B side, we did a lot of work in corporate reputation, which was also very exciting because we were dealing not so much with marketing researchers, but VPs of PR, corporate communications, and since it was about companies’ reputations, we got to present to the highest levels in the company. So, that was very exciting.

Karen: Yeah, what do you think about that type of work? What was it that kind of… I don’t want to say drew you to that work because I think you went into that work and you stayed there, but what kept you in that kind of work? What is the importance of that type of work?

John: Well, the importance is corporate reputation isn’t something that’s [laugh] that a lot of people in marketing research, you know, are very familiar with, but it really is important for corporations to know what people think about them. And it’s not about the brand. Brand equity or brand reputation is about one stakeholder group: customers and prospects, and one behavior: buy my products and services. Corporate reputation is about multiple stakeholders, both in and outside the company, the financial community, the investment community, the business peers, the media, the business media, government, and we studied all of those, and you know, most of the work we did was multicultural views of the corporation. And what we would do is there were three levels of that: one was knowledge, awareness, and familiarity; which leads to evaluation, do you like the company, or don’t you like the company, and what are the strengths and weaknesses, and what are the attributes you associate with the company; and the third thing is behavior because without a behavioral component, it’s just warm feelings, you know?

But how likely are you to buy the company’s stock, buy the company’s products, certainly, recommend employment to the company for the best and the brightest, you know? Some bright kid goes to his Uncle Joe, who’s vice president of a Fortune 500 company, and says, “I got a job offer from this company. Should I go there or not?” And you want the answer to be yes. 

And also, the media. You know, the media, reporters are people, if they think you’re treating them right, and you’re open with them, they’re going to write honest stories. If they think you’re trying to pull the wool over their eyes, they’re going to write a nasty story. I mean, it’s human nature. You know, so those were the things. And that the typology was very diagnostic. If nobody knows you—we did a study for TRW once. You probably remember TRW—

Karen: Yeah, yeah. 

John: —and they asked us, you know, go out there and talk to the financial and business community and tell them if they like us or don’t like us. And their concern was that they weren’t getting enough Wall Street attention. The securities analysts weren’t covering the company because it was basically an auto parts company with an aerospace component. And we went out there, and we came back, and we said, nobody loves you, nobody hates you. Nobody knows who you are. They think you’re TWA.

And so, they did this brilliant campaign of a 30 second commercial showing rockets taking off, and things like that. They never talked about the auto parts business, but it was rockets taking off, and then at the end they had the three TRW letters and all these flashing lights, and they would tilt, and it created awareness, which is what they needed. And sure enough, what followed was more analysts were covering the company. Noticeably more analysts were covering it. So, it’s a very diagnostic thing and it really helps companies figure out what they should be doing from a corporate communication standpoint. We had one company that we worked for 26 years. 

Karen: That’s pretty impressive. That’s some great retention right there, 26 years.

John: That is.

Karen: That might be a record [laugh]. I don’t know that I’ve heard of that.

John: They also owned a hotel chain, so the meetings were all in very good hotels.

Karen: Yeah, that’s nice. I know, I was just sitting there, you know, my mind keeps wandering to some of the changes, and I’d love to talk more about that, but you know, I was sitting there thinking, could you imagine—I was a qualitative researcher before I joined Greenbook—and I was thinking, “Could you imagine doing ten interviews in ten cities and having the travel budget for that sort of a thing today?” It just wouldn’t happen. You know, the costs alone, like, nobody would—they just wouldn’t allow that, you know. I just—they wouldn’t do that anymore. They wouldn’t allow you to spend that kind of money to travel to ten cities to talk to one person per city.

But that’s so effective and so meaningful, right? That’s what you do, and probably had these great conversations, so I really admire that and appreciate that. And I think about there’s something about some of the changes that have happened over a lifetime, right, back to your award, this lifetime achievement award. Are there any other kind of changes that you’ve seen? Maybe it’s, you know, client service has changed and client retention has changed. Maybe its budgets have changed. Have you noticed any other kind of poignant changes through, you know, the decades that you’ve been in this industry that you know are worth talking about and calling out?

John: Well, one is methodological. It’s night and day. When I started, in 1969, it was all in-person interviews. On the consumer side, they were given a, if it were, you know, a random sample, a probability sample, they were given a random block, and then a starting point on that block, and they went around and they went to people’s homes, and they could do this during the day because women were more often at home than they are now, and they’d be invited in and given coffee, and they’d do the interview, and you know, some of these interviews were, I mean, the Monitor interview was two hours long. And also, nobody got paid. Nobody even thought of asking for money to do the interview. The industry depended on the kindness of strangers. It was amazing. And on the B2B side, too. You did the interview in office. That’s why you had to travel to the ten cities, which I did. During one—[laugh] during an air traffic controller strike one time. So [laugh].

Karen: My goodness.

John: So, then methodologically, it then went to telephone interviews, which the purists were upset about because it was going to—how can you do a probability sample on tele—well, you could. And then when it went to online, again, we had this, “How can you do a probability sample?” Well, you can’t, [laugh] so it’s a whole different ball game now. But that’s one thing.

And I think, in terms of client service, I’m not sure if it’s changed that much. I mean, the basics are there. You have to serve the client, you have to find out what the problem is, you have to write a proposal, you then have to service the clients. I think TNS was very much on an account executive basis, and so, you know, that the account executives were out front, they were going to the clients, and then there was a group of researchers back in the office who did the research. I was more of a seller-doer, you know? I’d get a call, and if the client was out of town, I’d be on a plane because I just think it’s more effective if you can meet somebody in person and you can explain more about what you want to do than you can in a proposal.

Karen: What’s your—yeah, what’s your—so I’ve—both models do still exist today, right? What’s your take on that? The seller-doer versus, you know, the handoff from the seller to the servicer.

John: I’m not sure which is more effective. I much prefer working as a seller-doer. I mean… you know, even when I was managing research groups, I still had my own practice and I was doing research. That’s what I like to do. And it was profitable [unintelligible 00:18:36].

Karen: Yeah. So, you know, kind of thinking back, you know, again, through this evolution and when you think about this award, right, this lifetime achievement, what are some of the things you think you have achieved, aside from, like, in its entirety? Are there moments where you’re like, you know what, I view that as an achievement, or, you know, moments in time, or specific things, things that you would say, all right, you know what, I’ll consider that a win, or I’ll consider that a worthy moment?

John: Good question. There are a couple of things. One is, I got involved in CASRO when I was pretty young, probably in my early-30s. And I got involved with that because Arthur White, whom I mentioned before, went to one of the early CASRO meetings and signed up for the committee that was going to write the CASRO code of ethics. So, he came back to the office, called me into his office, and said—one of the great non-sequiturs of all time—said, “John, you went to Notre Dame. You know about ethics. Why don’t you take my place on this committee?”

Karen: [laugh]. That’s funny.

John: And I did, and I ended up chairing the committee, working with Harry O’Neill and Al Goldman and Herb [Abelson 00:20:03]. I mean, biggest names in the industry, who treated me like an equal, which I wasn’t. But we got it done. We produced the code of ethics, which was there until CASRO, with some amendments, which we had to do for when online research came, it was a whole lot of different things that came up. But that, I thought, was an achievement. And then a few years later I was elected chair of CASRO. And that was an incredible honor.

And from there I got to do a lot of other things, and you know, industry leadership forums and things like that. I was in the board of advisors for the MMR program at University of Georgia for 20 years, and you know, I just had the opportunity to do a lot of things. The other achievements was mentoring. I worked with some incredible young people who did good work for us and then went on to have fantastic careers doing other things. And that was just a lot of fun.

And then CASRO had this program, the junior project director training program, where leaders in CASRO would talk about the basics of sampling and questionnaire writing and project management things like that, and I would be at the end with the basics of report writing. And I figured we did that for about 20 years, we did at least 50 project directors a year, so I figured I influenced a thousand junior project directors, probably corrupted their minds. But still people told me through the years, “Hey, I went to your thing. I remember your project director training thing, and it was good.” So, I mean, that was good, too.

And the other achievement was just doing good work, you know, year after year in the corporate reputation area, which we talked about, but we did a lot of things there, in both custom research and multi-sponsored research, which I won’t get into. And then the research for public relations, public release, you know, for all sorts of companies. There’s one study I remember was a study for Allstate, and they had—it was kind of a pedestrian study about how people drive, and you know, they’d been doing it for years. And I slipped in one little question, which was, “Do you name your car?” And how many people—what percentage of Americans name their car, Karen?

Karen: It’s got to be, it’s got to be a lot more than people think. I would say at least 65% I would say 65%.

John: Well, not that many. 24.

Karen: Only 24%?

John: Yeah. 24%.

Karen: That’s crazy. I would think more. I’m a car-namer. Isn’t that funny?

John: Oh, okay. Yeah, my daughter is, too. But yeah, 24%. And most of the names are female, like Betsy, or things like that.

Karen: Yep, yep. Okay, that tracks.

John: Some are scatological. ‘piece of crap.’

Karen: Yeah, okay, that’s funny.

John: And, but there were some interesting ones. So, anyway, that one question got a lot of publicity.

Karen: Yeah, that’s a great question. I have to go back to something else you said, you know, because you mentioned, like, good research, and I want to know how you define that.

John: Well, good work is that it’s made a difference to the client.

Karen: Mmm, good. Got it.

John: I mean, that’s what it’s all about. That’s why I say, in my basics of report-writing, the report has to—you know, when you write up the summary, the conclusions and recommendations, or whatever, it’s got to tell the client what they should be doing differently because they spent money in this research.

Karen: Yeah.

John: And if it doesn’t meet that criterion, then it’s not good research.

Karen: Yeah, yeah. Excellent, thank you. You know, let’s stick with mentorship for a while because, you know, one of the questions about that is thinking about, you know, the next generation of researchers, we do—you know, at Greenbook, where we always talk about kind of, you know, that we have a Future List where we’re kind of honoring the next generation of researchers who are making a difference, you know, we really know firsthand, there’s a lot we can learn from people who are, you know, within the first ten years of their career, just as much as we can learn from people who have, you know, decades of tenure. What do you think that younger professionals, you know, should learn from older professionals or more seasoned professionals? What do you think are some of the lessons that you would bestow upon some of the people that you mentor?

John: First of all, I think you have to impart a love for the craft because that’s what we’re doing, you know? And I think if people really don’t love the craft, don’t love or don’t get excited about the industry, then they should leave. Because my feeling is that you have to like what you do. I mean, you’re doing it 40, 50, 60, hours a week, and if you hate it, you’re going to be miserable. So, you know, I think if people don’t like it, or if they’re doing things, you know, they’re just not good employees, you know, you’re not doing them a favor by keeping them.

But if they do love it, they do get excited about it, then you could start, you know, giving them examples of what you do in certain situations, bring them along to client meetings early on, you know, which is what happened to me. You know, and what I really enjoyed was building teams. And then, you know, teams support each other, and we, you know, both at Roper and at Yankelovich, which we just had some incredible teams of people who would pick up their colleagues. If the colleague was overwhelmed and they weren’t, that you—it’s not that somebody had to say, “Why don’t you go help that person?” You know, they do it themselves. And that’s… that’s what it’s all about. It’s that, you know, sets of team and sets of helping your fellow workers.

Karen: So, it’s really a lesson for the managers of the younger employees, right? It’s like the younger employees, they have to—we’re trying to instill a passion for the craft in them and it’s up to the managers to kind of manifest that in some way, like, give them the opportunities to fall in love. Yeah.

John: Yeah.

Karen: Yeah, I like that. That’s great, sound advice… and I can totally see myself in that as well. And I think that was a part of it for me, you know, early on was, I had some opportunities that allowed me to fall in love as well, so that absolutely resonates. On the flip side, as I was asking you that question, and I was thinking we do have a lot to learn from people who are, you know, just starting out, you know, have any of the people that you’ve mentored taught you a thing or two? 

John: Oh, sure. Absolutely.

Karen: What do you think? What do you think you’ve picked up from somebody else, from them? [laugh].

John: Well, just different ways of doing things. You know, certainly, in terms of technology, you know, younger people are—you know, ever since PCs came into the workplace, they were all better than I was, by definition, and you know, but they showed me, you know, some of the shortcuts you could take, and you know, and also just, you know, there are generational differences. So, you know, younger people have different ways of looking at things, and some of them are better, certainly in terms of—I think—just more equality in terms of gender and ethnicity and all the other things. I think the younger generation, you know, gives me a lot of hope in terms of those issues. 

You know, and it’s great. I taught some classes, I’ve guest lectured at some universities, and it’s always great to see these college undergraduates who are just so smart. I mean, you could despair for the future, and then you can, you know, just to have that experience of having young peop—you know, 20-year-olds asking you great questions and being really interested in what you’re talking about.

Karen: Yeah, you know, I wonder if you have a shared experience with me on something that you could impart some hope, also. Having seen some of those changes that we talked about earlier, you know, from when things—when… developments, you know, when we moved from, you know, in person to telephone and telephone to online, some people have equated, you know, this AI disruption to, kind of, just the disruption of the mobile phone, for example, and how, you know, the whole industry kind of was rocked when everything had to go mobile, right, in the early—in kind of the turn of the century. And everything was mobile, everything was mobile, and everybody was obsessed with mobile, and then at some point we all settled down, right, and we stopped talking about it so much, and it’s just another way that research—you know, it’s another way that surveys happened, is some people started using their smartphones. And we stopped talking about it. Do you have any kind of wisdom for people who are feeling rocked by the AI disruption right now, based on what you’ve seen in the other disruptions you have lived through? Or, on the contrary, are you worried about this current disruption [laugh]?

John: I think we don’t know yet. You know, it’s like when online research, and you know, online searches, and things like Google, and people being able to do things online, I gave a speech on that way back in—well I was still in [unintelligible 00:30:40], so it was the late-90s, and what I said is we just don’t know. We cannot imagine right now the changes. And if you look from the late-90s to now and what you can do on a phone, which has more capability than the first… much more capability than the first moonshot, we just don’t know. I am concerned that people will take the shortcut and have your AI write their report for them.

And my daughter is in the business, and she’s, you know, she’s tried that, and she says, “Well, you know, it’s like the first draft from a junior. And, you know, it’s not wrong, but it’s not right, and it’s not in cycle.” And so, there’s got to be that human touch to it. But what I’m afraid of, is the juniors are going to do, you know, just say, “Here’s my report,” and it’s totally AI, and it’s not going to be serving the client’s interests. It needs a more senior, it needs to be questioned, it needs to be delved into, it needs to be poked and prodded to make it meaningful.

Karen: Yeah. So, cautionary tale there. So, let’s put out more hope for the future, that the juniors kind of proceed with caution, right? That they learn from conversations like this and proceed with caution with AI. Before we fully wrap, you know, at Greenbook, we talk about the future of insights, right? That’s sort of what we’re all about, and I love having your expertise here because, you know, you have seen so much. 

And you know, one of the things that we always ask people is, you know, where do you think we’re headed in the future? What do you think the future of insights is? And it could be the future of opinion research, it could be the future of social science research, it could be, you know, the future of all the types of research that you’ve done with, you know, kind of, you know, the B2B research and the corporate research that you’ve done. So, where do you think we’re headed methodologically or strategically moving forward?

John: You know, I haven’t been totally involved in the industry for a few years now, so I’m probably not the best person to ask. I do think AI is an open question, as we discussed, synthetic data is something that worries me. I just don’t—I think there’s some real flaws in that. But it’s going to evolve. It’s going to be used for, you know, non-high leverage situations, screening products, or you know, initial product screenings, and things like that. 

I do think that we are losing the craft. I think the—I’m on a panel for the car—you know, the manufacturer of the car I own and the questionnaires are really uneven. I mean, there’s some that are just unintelligible. And I used to, before my company got busy, I used to do—just for fun—do online surveys, and some of those questionnaires were hard, just hard. So, that’s what I’m concerned about, you know, that we’re going to lose the craft. 

And who’s training now? I think it’s the small, independent full-service firms, the RTIs, the Opiniums, the Logicas and other ones that are doing the training. And then either clients or other research, bigger research firms are hiring those people away. At TNS, the only training was product training, you know? Their stakeholder management product, their brand equity product. You know, they’re being trained in a product not in the craft of the research. And you know, so it’s very, very routinized. And not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just that, you know, without refreshment, the craft is going to—you know, the quality of the questionnaires is going to go down, and that’s the root of everything we do.

Karen: So, what would you say to somebody, say, you know, somebody in the industry who may not know the difference right now? Maybe they’re at a company that is—you know, they’re, maybe their research isn’t top notch, but they don’t know what to look for, you know? They don’t know the difference because they’ve never been trained in the art. What would you say to them? How does somebody start to spot good versus bad? How do they get trained up right in the art, in the craft of good research? 

John: I’d read a lot about, you know, the various newsletters that are out there. I always read those, the [Hannah Michael 00:36:04] newsletter when that was out. You know, I think just knowing what—that was the eye-opener when I joined CASRO because Yankelovich was a little bit arrogant, maybe been a lot arrogant. But I met these other people, and they were so smart, and they were our competitors. And I said, “Well, you know, there’s a bigger world than just the world I’m in there.”

So, I think, just, you know, trying to get to the industry events, things like that, just to have a window to the rest of the industry. I should say, too, that the Insights Association made a spectacular move hiring Anita Watkins as the new CEO. She’s wonderful.

Karen: That’s great.

John: It was just—and she’s going to bring big changes. She is a star.

Karen: That’s great. John, is there anything that we didn’t get to in our time together that you wish we had covered?

John: Oh no, I think we covered a lot [laugh]. 

Karen: [laugh]. I know, we did.

John: You did a good job.

Karen: We did. Well, I’m just so glad that we had the pleasure of speaking to one another, and I want to congratulate you again. I know that, again, by the time this episode airs, we’re probably just about two weeks away from the luncheon that you’re going to have in New York City, where they—it’s already been announced that you’re this honoree. But I wish you the best of time at this luncheon, where they’re going to be giving you your award, and congratulations once again.

John: Well, thank you very much. Thank you for asking me to do this, and yes, it’s an honor, an unbelievable honor, to get this award.

Karen: Well, you’re very deserving, and it was a pleasure to speak with you. So, best of luck to you.

John: Thank you very much.

Karen: And to our listeners, I want to say thank you so much for tuning in. To our producer on this episode. I’m going to shout out Emma Nichols. Thank you so very much for what you’re doing. It’s a pleasure. And to Big Bad Audio for cleaning us up and making us sound great. Thank you for what you do. We’ll see you next time on the Greenbook Podcast. Bye-bye, everyone.