Waldemar Pförtsch: B2B Marketing & Ingredient Branding

A History of Marketing / Episode 29

I’ve made an oversight that needs correcting. For a podcast about marketing history, we've almost exclusively focused on consumer brands. We’ve barely touched on business-to-business marketing, even though B2B makes up a larger sector of the global economy.

In marketing textbooks and industry coverage, B2C campaigns tend to grab the headlines while B2B marketers work behind the scenes. It's ironic this podcast would have the same bias, considering I've spent most of my own career in the B2B world.

So today, we’re diving into the side of the industry I know best. It’s the engine that markets everything from jet engines to the datacenter chips powering the AI revolution, all the way down to the glass on your smartphone. How did B2B marketing evolve from a sales support function to a sophisticated field in its own right?

To explore this history, I'm joined by one of its pioneers, Waldemar Pfoertsch. In the 1980s, Pfoertsch helped establish the first marketing department at the German industrial giant Siemens. Pfoertsch explains this was when the term "marketing" was new to the B2B world. He co-authored B2B Brand Management with Philip Kotler and is now at the forefront of what he calls “H2H” (Human-to-Human) marketing.

Listen to the podcast: Spotify / Apple Podcasts / YouTube Podcasts

History shaped Pfoertsch's career. He studied economics in a divided Cold War Berlin, worked in a socialist margarine factory in Poland, and consulted for companies in the former Eastern Bloc as they navigated a turbulent transition to capitalism.

In this episode, you’ll learn:

* Case Studies in Industrial Marketing: How companies like Saint-Gobain (founded 1665), Siemens (founded 1847), and IBM (founded 1911) marketed their industrial products

* Ingredient Branding: The story behind "Intel Inside" and the sophisticated B2B2C strategy that can make a component more famous than the final product.

* A Cold War Perspective: What working in a socialist factory revealed about the flaws of a planned economy and the power of market systems.

* From “Industrial” to “B2B”: How the term B2B became, in Pfoertsch’s words, "a sexy one" compared to the older "industrial marketing."

Note: A special thank you to Xiaoying Feng, a Marketing Ph.D. Candidate at Syracuse, who volunteers to review and edit transcripts for accuracy and clarity.

Andrew Mitrak: Waldemar Pfoertsch, welcome to a History of Marketing.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Hi Andrew, I'm very happy to be here.

Andrew Mitrak: Me too. So we have a lot to cover: B2B brand management, ingredient branding, and H2H marketing. But before we get into all of that, I want to hear about your background. When did you first become interested in marketing?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: The first time I really did marketing was in 1984 when I worked at Siemens. At that time, they didn't have a marketing department; they didn't have the term "marketing." And one professor, Professor Backhaus, a B2B professor, came to Siemens and said, "Hey, you have to think of marketing."

That was actually the time when marketing spilled over from the U.S. to Germany. For B2C (business-to-consumer), it came a little bit earlier, and in the early '80s, B2B marketing came to Germany. So, we established in that project the first marketing department at Siemens.

Siemens is a large electrical conglomerate, and I was in strategic planning at that time. We were responsible for that project, so that was the first time marketing came to a German B2B company.

Andrew Mitrak: I have to ask, just how did you set that up? How did you set up a marketing department at Siemens?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Well, Siemens is a conglomerate, similar to General Electric (GE). Actually, today it's larger than General Electric, and we always looked up to General Electric. Now we are looking down, which is not good. But nevertheless, at that time, the selling was done through sales. Marketing didn't exist. There was technology and the salespeople, and nothing in between. The knowledge was with the salespeople.

And the major insight at that time was, "Hey, the knowledge is not with the company. The core knowledge is outside. We can't do the right things." Only if the salesperson tells the R&D guys can they do the better things. And then we started thinking about marketing intelligence, gathering the information from the salespeople, setting up on each of the divisions one person who was the interface between the salespeople and the R&D and the manufacturing.

It's not... I mean, R&D is very important, but you also have to know how to supply. If you don't have the products ready when they are needed... So that was the magic, and it really propelled Siemens to a different layer.

Shaped by Cold War Berlin and the Eastern Bloc

Andrew Mitrak: Stepping back, before you joined Siemens, you studied marketing and economics at what in English is called the Free University of Berlin in the 1970s. And Berlin, by the way, is one of my favorite cities in the world to visit today, but you were there when it was a divided city, of course. And in some ways, Berlin was the epicenter, it symbolized this ideological conflict between communism and capitalism. Being there at that time in history, studying things like marketing and economics, just seems like quite the place to be. Did Berlin and the Cold War influence your perspective on marketing and economics?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Absolutely. I mean, that was mind-bubbling. This was really great, this situation. But I have to tell you, I did not study marketing. There was no marketing book, there was nothing there. I mean, there was business, and I actually studied economics and business; I have two master's degrees. And out of that, things developed.

But let me give you a personal experience. I did a couple of internships during my study, and one of the internships was in Poland. So I worked in a socialist margarine factory, and I did all the things that were necessary to get the product out of the door and get it to the stores and the retail. But that was a pure disaster. I mean, there was no funding, there were no capabilities, there was no understanding. And the main problem of the planned economy was supplies. Do we have enough material to let the machine run? And if we don't have it, what do we do? How do we subsidize? It was a total disaster. And it was pretty clear that this kind of system has to go down. And it went down.

When you look at East Germany, it was very good in the '60s and the '70s, but then when the digitalization or the electronic stuff started, they fell behind. They had some stuff in Romania, so the East Bloc did something, but in the '80s, they really fell behind. And that, of course, showed the superiority of other systems. But on the other hand, we also know that the new free market system has its flaws, too.

From Corporate to Consulting: A Pivot to Post-Cold War Europe

Andrew Mitrak: Then you spent eight years at Siemens after your education, and then later you became a professor of marketing. I'm wondering how your experience in the private sector shaped your approach to being an academic.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Well, the work at Siemens was an extraordinary work, so that really shaped my knowledge. And that's why I'm still a B2B guy. I come from the B2B world. But also, Siemens was an international company. They are in 190 countries of this world, so the interaction—the power plants, the automation equipment, everything went globally. And that is something which is very different from a consumer market perspective. So the industrial part really shaped myself.

After Siemens, I actually started a consulting company in Chicago for bringing German or European companies to America. But unfortunately, that was 1990-1991, when the Eastern Bloc opened up. So nobody from Europe was going west; they were all going east.

So I did a first study trip with Kellogg students to East Germany, and when I came there, I saw the opportunities and the need for bringing knowledge to the new territories. So East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, all these kinds of countries needed help. And I did a roughly 10-year consulting period where I helped many companies in East Germany and in Eastern Europe to restructure and become international.

But you probably remember at that time, there was the collapse of Russia, the Soviet Republic. And then all the markets for the East European companies disappeared. So they had to do a turnaround and look to other markets—the U.S., the Asian markets. So that was also an exciting period of time.

Andrew Mitrak: That’s astonishing that you were educating companies in the Eastern Bloc that had grown up under communism, then suddenly needed to adapt. Do you have any favorite stories of people you met or companies you worked with at this time?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: I mean, there are good stories and not-so-good stories. I worked for Adtranz, which was a train manufacturer. They took over the East European train manufacturing, and that became Bombardier today. So that is a super success story, where they used the technology and all the people, the knowledge, and created a new company out of that.

But unfortunately, most of the East European companies fell apart. And I actually had one very sad project where I had to close down a manufacturing plant of precious metal production with 15,000 people. And that was not fun. Number one, they didn't see why we have to close it down. Number two, I could not sell it because everybody wants them to go down. So all the Western companies were saying, "Okay, we're going to destroy that. We want to have our own dominance." And it was so difficult at that time. And there were more of them. I mean, lots of knowledge was destroyed in that period of time, because the approach chosen in the various countries was did not suit too well. Hungary did a good process, where they said, okay, we don't close any companies, we just give the access to capital, and when you have capital access, you can actually make management decisions. Czech Republic was in between, Poland had a special solution, and then we had the East European, which were the East German one, which was the most the biggest market, and most of the East German companies got destroyed. On various reasons, of course, some of them became manufacturing places for other companies. I mean Mercedes-Benz now, the old Dam had various places there. But it is more a sad story than a good story.

Andrew Mitrak: Well, thanks for sharing that with us. It is a moment in recent history. That is just astonishing that all of that took place, that transformation took place.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Yeah, but you also need to remember the downturn of the Soviet Union. I mean the Chicago Boys didn't do a good job. They had an idea, but the country was not ready. In 1994 and 1995, we had a huge, huge, failure in that area, and of course, they came back, and that is also an explanation why they are looking for leaders who are not putting money first. They are putting national things first, and we have to see. Stuff that develops out of certain activities, and now we have to deal with it.

Andrew Mitrak: Yeah, that history is still unfolding and rippling.

From “Industrial” to “Business to Business” to "B2B"

Andrew Mitrak: Moving to B2B, you mentioned this, you said that you're a B2B guy. I've also spent my career in B2B marketing, and it's a topic that we haven't actually really focused on yet on this podcast. So I'm really excited to speak about B2B with you. You co-authored B2B Brand Management with Philip Kotler in 2006. And it sounds like this word, "B2B," was a new term at the time. It was previously more used as "business to business," all spelled out. Can you share more about the emergence of B2B marketing and what inspired you to write this book specifically on B2B brand management?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Let's go first to the term. "B2B" was used around 1998-2000 as B2B e-commerce. We had the first initial B2C e-commerce, the start of Amazon and all of that, and then the B2B companies started. And this term was clearly used only for e-commerce. People bought components, particularly C-parts, not the main stuff—not trucks, not other things, but small things. And that was the start. But the term was a sexy one. It really characterized stuff.

So when we wrote the book, we said, how should we call it? The term which was used before was "industrial marketing." And the term "industrial marketing" does not have an appealing connotation. It is industrial, it's machinery, it's stuff like that. So when we decided on the title, and I still remember Philip Kotler was so strong on, "We need to use B2B!" So we did.

But the reason why we wrote B2B... I was at Kellogg in 1990-91 in the strategy department as a visiting professor, and Phil was on the fourth floor, and we met various times on the fourth floor because there was always more life than in the strategy department. So I came to the fourth floor, and we talked and had joined activities and exchanged preparation for class and this kind of stuff. When I came to Germany and tried to understand what's going on in the market, of course, I had the knowledge from Siemens before, but I was teaching in southern Germany, which is actually the industrial heart. And what I saw was, these guys had no idea about marketing, and branding was not there. Of course, there was Bosch, the big guys. In Stuttgart, there was an IBM department and an HP and some other American companies. But the small and medium-sized companies, they were left alone. They had no approach on how to fight the big guys.

All my students were going to try to go to Daimler and Bosch, but for the small companies hired them at the end, because there was a limited pool at the big companies. They came back to me and said, "Hey, what you told us, I can't apply it." So I said, "What's the problem?" So I had lots of theses and student papers, and all were about, “hey, we have no idea what to do."

So then came the analysis: what is the issue? What is different between B2C marketing and B2B marketing? And it's pretty obvious.

The Core Differences Between B2B and B2C Marketing

Waldemar Pfoertsch: What is different between B2C marketing and B2B marketing? In B2B marketing, we talk about large products, expensive stuff, complicated technology, and international sales. We are not talking about individual personal purchases; we talk about group buying. We talk about long-term relationships. We actually don't talk about products; we talk about solutions. And you have to promote that differently.

A TV commercial doesn't help. You need to bring the knowledge. You need to involve the guys. You need to actually develop the product together with your customers, and you need to understand the customers of the customers. So that kind of marketing was not there. And then, of course, the major deficit was branding. They used their name, they had a corporate logo, but it was just sitting there, and there was no brand ambassador. All this kind of stuff needed to be created.

That was actually the reason why we wrote the book. There's another reason, Phillp, when he wrote his marketing management or the Principal of Marketing, he had some parts of B2B in there. But B2B and branding were not there. Finally, from that year, he had a chapter on B2B, and also a subchapter on branding. And that really changed the learning of the students; everybody who goes through marketing today at least knows that B2B marketing is different.

Today, B2B management, B2B marketing, and B2B brand management are on the same level as B2C. So I'm pretty happy about what we have achieved.

Andrew Mitrak: Yeah, absolutely. It's an area that has grown a lot in the last 19 years or so since this book was published. I'm frankly happy that you adopted B2B marketing as a tool. As a B2B marketer myself. I wouldn't feel as good if my LinkedIn profile said industrial marketing instead of B2B.

Building on Aaker's Foundational Branding Models

Andrew Mitrak: I did speak with David Aaker on a previous episode of this podcast, and of course, he's cited very frequently in your book, or his work is referenced. His work on building strong brands is a little more focused on B2C. I'm curious how your work, B2B Brand Management, built on Aaker's earlier models or how it differed.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: I mean, David, number one, is a good friend. Number two, his concept is the basis of everything, so no doubt about it. But the situation in B2B is different. Let's talk about the decision-making process, the buying center. So we have somebody who says, "Hey, we need a new truck," or, "We need new equipment." That's most of the time, the user. Sometimes it's the finance guy, and he sees the economics getting out of control, so we have to do something. Sometimes it's the technology fellow who says, "Hey, we need to update."

So there are various reasons why somebody wants to buy some new things in B2B. In B2C, it's different, right? You're driven by impulse, you're driven by innovation, you're driven by your neighbors, whatever makes you buy something new. In B2B, the main emphasis is you want to create value. And you want to create value for yourself, but also you want to create value for your customer. And therefore, you need to consider various aspects. In the buying center, there is not only the user, the decider, and the gatekeeper. They are also the people who see what it means for the overall thing, like the financial guys. And of course, the CEO, who has the overview, who sees, "Hey, I buy this, or I buy that, and I can have this?" So this kind of decision-making process is very different from B2C. It has the elements, and it needs a psychological consideration, because all the people, all the participants are people.

So what Aaker has done is the groundwork for B2B, but the application is different. And of course, it's also continuously changing. So I always refer to Aaker when it comes to the basics of the principles, but there are also areas we need to adapt and areas we need to develop.

He had a book on brand portfolio, which is the only book in the market, but there's much more to do for this area. So that's another project. which has to come up because in B2B brand portfolios is becoming so important. There are various examples where companies are adding various brands because now, without a brand, you're not something. In the old approaches, in the Siemens, the IBM, you try to integrate. General Electric took the brand away, took the assets, brought it out, was super successful. 10 years ago, GE started to keep the brands. Siemens is doing a different way. They're spinning off the brands and concentrates. That kind of portfolio management needs new consideration. So there is more to do in B2B brand management.

Can Brands Transition from B2C to B2B?

Andrew Mitrak: Do you have any favorite examples of B2C brands that successfully expanded to B2B or vice versa? I'm always curious about how brands exist in both or use maybe their awareness in B2C to build their B2B marketing. What are some examples of companies that have crossed over?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: The classic example is GE. I mean, from the light bulb to the fridge to the power plant. But today, GE doesn't have appliances anymore. They sold it off. The brand is still there, but you know, some other companies are running it. The same with Siemens. They had the refrigerators and the other appliances. They sold it off. But they went through this development and concentrated.

We have actually a very interesting new development, which came with the digitalization. Most of the big digital companies started as B2C Company. When you look at Amazon, it was a B2C company, and today, it's a cloud company, and by the way, Amazon Business is now at 200 billion. It's already a big one. It's the same with Microsoft. They started as a computer company or a software company for PCs. Now their company will cater to the corporate. So the digital companies expanded from the B2C approach to the B2B approach, and it's clear because B2B is actually more than B2C. We have the government markets, as part of B2B, we have education, we have health. So there is consumer market. The example, what I normally take is when you sell an Airbus, you probably have to sell 100 million T-shirts to consumers just to show the importance of B2B.

Ingredient Branding: Differentiating Products with B2B2C Marketing

Andrew Mitrak: This is one of my favorite sections of the book, is on ingredient branding. I've always been fascinated by this topic because it involves multiple companies navigating joint positioning of their brands alongside each other. I haven’t talked about this on this show. Could you just define what ingredient branding is for listeners?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Well, I actually use another acronym; I use B2B2C (business-to-business-to-consumer). And by using this acronym, the situation gets relatively clear. You have a component supplier, and the component is so important for the final customer that the performance of the component is a decision factor for the final buying decision.

It started in the '80s. People discovered that sugar is not the right thing to drink. And then came NutraSweet. And NutraSweet managed to go into Coke and the other soft drink suppliers, and that really changed. But they had to do something. So the B company, the NutraSweet, had to tell the Coke drinkers, "Hey, you have something better."

Andrew Mitrak: Because before, it would be saccharin, and saccharin would be on the label, and that's like a chemical, it's not a brand, and it sounds gross. But if you call it NutraSweet, it's like, "Oh, what's that?" That sounds a little better.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: So, NutraSweet is actually the first company who really did it professionally. And when you look at the other ingredient branding companies which came up—one of them is Intel, Gore-Tex—they all hired people from NutraSweet. So NutraSweet is actually the core of that. And the most famous one is the "Intel Inside." And of course, the Gore-Tex, the Dolbys, and many more. It's roughly 150 very dominant companies. Phillp and myself, we actually wrote a book on ingredient branding, a whole book. And in the end, they are all the ingredient branding in there, so we analyze them all.

The most important part is you have to get the customer pull going. So if the customer understands that what you're offering is really superior, the customer goes to the store and says, "I want it." And of course, they don't have it. So there are 10, 20, hundreds of people saying, "Hey, I want a jacket where I don't get wet, and my sweat inside goes out." The answer is Gore-Tex.

I mean, that's magic. If you go hiking, if you go bicycling, if you go mountain climbing, whatever you do outside, you are sweating. So the sweat has to go out. If you have cotton, you're wet. I still go walking, I still go hiking, and I see people wearing a cotton t-shirt, and I know, "Hey guys, you are 50 years behind."

There is better technology, right? So the invention of Gore-Tex really changed. And that invention is worth for you more than a hundred bucks. So having a regular jacket and a Gore-Tex jacket makes a difference, and you are willing to pay for it. So when you get that pull, then you won. And that was actually the magic of what Intel did.

Remember, we had 50 million processes at that time, and Intel had 40 [million].. I was at Siemens, and we had our own processor. We had a Siemens processor which was, by the way, much better than the Intel. Much better. We had multitasking, we had multiple boards, we had multiple... Intel did that 20 years later. We had that, but we didn't have the marketing power, and we didn't understand what Andy Grove was doing. By the way, Andy Grove did it against his financial people. I talked to the CFO from that time, and he said, "I didn't agree, but he pushed us." He said, "We have to spend it." So that was really one person who understood the ingredient branding.

Andrew Mitrak: Totally. So I was born in 1990, and I grew up. So if I think of the ads and purchasing a PC, when my family bought their their first computer, that I remember, at least, for the home, and I just remember in the 90s, in the early 2000s, going into a Best Buy and seeing all the Microsoft PCs, or the Windows PCs that were created by Compaq, and Dell, and Gateway, and they all had the light blue sticker on them. The sticker that said, “Intel Inside.”

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Except one, remember?

Andrew Mitrak: Apple?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: No, Compaq. Well, Apple, too, but Compaq didn't. And it didn't survive.

Andrew Mitrak: Oh, okay.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: It's gone. The only company who didn't was Apple. And by the way, Apple switched to Intel before they designed their own switch.

Andrew Mitrak: But when they switched, though, Apple never put a blue sticker on, though, when they switched. And they seem like the only company that was able to get Intel, but they didn't want to do the ingredient brand in the same way that others did.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Actually, this is the situation today with Apple. And this is one of the most important things to understand. If you have a strong brand—Mercedes-Benz, Apple—and you put another logo on, you actually dilute your brand. So ingredient branding works particularly good for underdogs.

Is Ingredient Branding A Smart Long-Term Strategy?

Andrew Mitrak: This is actually the question I want to follow up with is that because of the competition between the two brands, there are a lot of those PC makers, like Gateway I mentioned earlier, that I don't think exist anymore. And the Dell and HP they exist today, and they're doing fine, but if you look at counterparts, like Apple, a multi-trillion dollar company versus, I haven't looked up their market caps for HP and Dell lately, but it's a lot lower. That wasn't the case. Apple was much smaller than them at the time, but it seems like the value accrued to companies that weren't as reliant on ingredient branding in the long-term. It may have helped some of these companies in the short term and break through, but maybe there were long-term brand issues.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Ingredient branding is a temporary concept for consumer brands. If you have various brands facing the customer, the customer is confused. You expect from a high-end brand that they have the best processor, that they have the best camera, that they have the best class, that they have the best protection. You expect that from Mercedes. You want that.

Of course, when you are not so a high-end car, you want some components which make the car better. For example, Brembo brakes. So when Chrysler put the Brembo brakes on, suddenly the people who really want to drive a faster car understood this is the car. This is the brakes, what you need for having a powerful engine. A good example I use is Huawei, a Chinese brand. They came from B2B. This is a B2B company, and then they added the Handheld. They do telephone systems, and then they added the handheld. And of course, the handheld was Chinese. I mean, what do you expect? Cheap, breaks, whatever, but then they use a Zeiss camera. And that ingredient really propelled them up. So with an ingredient brand, you can bring your product to the level of a high-end brand. And today, Huawei is on the same level. I mean, they have people say, I would never buy an Apple after I had a Huaweii. And now they have their own operating system. Now the situation is even different.

Ingredient brand is a temporary strategy for certain products, and it's actually a very difficult one, because when we wrote the book in 2006, Intel changed, from Intel inside to I3, I4, I5, I7 inside. So they changed from a corporate ingredient brand to a feature ingredient brand. That is an important part. I can give you another example. It's Gore-Tex. If you cover all the areas of your market, you have the so-called “fiasco effect.” Fiasco effect means everybody has your product. You can't differentiate anymore. So, you have to come up with an something for differentiation. And that is crucial, because if you don't differentiate, it doesn't mean anything. So how does Gore-Tex do it? They actually do it very differently. They do it very selectively. They go by industry application. Gore-Tex, we have in bicycles. Gore-Tex, we have in motorcycles. Gortex, we have in workforce. Gore-Tex, we have in medical, all that kind of stuff, where we really needed it. I mean, it's super important technology, but what they do is they give exclusive rights to suppliers. And with that, they don't run into the fiasco effect. And that is very important. Ingredient running is the most sophisticated marketing or branding concept, and it needs constant attention.

The Evolution to Human-to-Human (H2H) Marketing

Andrew Mitrak: I want to shift this conversation to H2H marketing. You published H2H Marketing: The Genesis of Human-to-Human Marketing in 2021, and the preface of this book describes H2H marketing as an evolution and expansion of B2B marketing. So what is H2H marketing, and what inspired you to write this book?

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Thank you for asking that because what we have today is really something different. In the last 20 years, marketing and branding really changed because technology changed, interaction to customer changed, lots of things really made the world different.

We went through the description of B2B marketing and B2C marketing. By understanding the digital transformation, we just need to acknowledge that today, we have the opportunity to actually reach each and every individual. Which also means on the other side, on the B side, the company side, there are also individuals. And these individuals can connect with the final individuals. So coming from B2B, going to B2B2C, and seeing that in all these various transactions are humans, and we can reach these humans, we can have a new concept.

And that concept, what we call now human-to-human marketing, is a concept which builds on the existing current knowledge of marketing, but it adds the dimension of digital transformation. It adds innovation by using design thinking, and it makes a major shift by looking at a new way of understanding marketing per se. We use the so-called service-dominant logic as the theory for the new marketing.

What we see here is that the new concept of H2H marketing is a concept where digital is first. It's a prerequisite. Twenty years ago, we couldn't have done it because we wouldn't have interacted with these guys. But today, we have the possibilities. And also, you are looking for producing something; you are looking for creating value for your customer, and that customer creates together something new, and also you learn from it. So that kind of new concept, and you will see not too much is in the current textbooks. So there will it will take some time, and there's also a big struggle about the term H2H. It's not yet completely accepted, but I'm pretty sure we'll find a term, and I'm pretty sure that the principles we have laid out here will be understood and applied. It's actually very important that not only the [magnificant] seven applying it, but the other ones. And that is actually my mission to get the knowledge out to all the people in the world who would like to do better marketing and what we need today for a better future. By the way, now AI is coming, and AI is a digital agent. It's part of that process, and will change the marketing approach for the future.

Andrew Mitrak: I love this concept of H2H marketing. We can and should record another follow-up interview just on this topic because I think it's so fascinating. Professor Waldemar Pfoertsch, Thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed the conversation.

Waldemar Pfoertsch: Thank you, Andrew. It was a pleasure for me.

Footnote: