Fieldglass never positioned on a low price spaces. We were probably never the lowest price provider. We were probably always in the top half, maybe sometimes even one of the more premium priced offering. But again, that's where we didn't want to get caught up in a future war, we would want to sell on the basis of the overall company, including the platform and the people and the community that you're buying into. Really important part of the Fieldglass value proposition over time, when you become a Fieldglass customer, you're not just getting in VMS, you're joining this ecosystem of all these other Fieldglass customers, which are your peers. They're your peers in the world, you're joining a group of other global 2,000 companies and you're going to learn much more from them, and you're going to learn a lot from us as we create these community vehicles to bring everyone together. There were always a few situations where we got into a feature type of war, but I think the nature of our platforms, the comprehensiveness of it, the duration of the sale, the stickiness of our platform once it was implemented, we generally avoided trying to get into feature wars. We would try not to sell specific features or sell against someone else's lack of a feature. We would really try to position ourselves on an overall offering and say that overall, even if we're lacking in a specific feature, overall our functionality is going to be superior and over time, our commitment to getting there is going to serve you as a customer. It was important, but we try not to make it the primary part of our sale. We try not to do just a product sale. We try to make sure that product was very much a part of it. Ultimately, they were buying a product, but at the end of the day, if we compete on features, it would've just been much more, but because someone is always going to have a better feature and some better whistle than us, and we're always going to have a bunch of better bells and whistles than someone else. That war, that sale processes, it's almost a flip of the coin. It just depends on what our product happens to be, and what happens to be important to people. I think for us being able to sell on an overall commitment and say that, look you're really buying into Fieldglass as a company with a platform, with the ecosystem that we bring to the table, our knowledge, that's really what you're buying and our commitment to continue evolving this product. You certainly don't want to be in the undifferentiated middle. We've taken the view in terms of competitive advantage that we want to be efficient, but we'll never be more efficient than GEICO, their cost structure is something to be in all of. In terms of product innovation we'll probably not be as innovative, in product as some of the newer companies that are coming online, inside this space. We're in the service space and we're also in the value add space. Really when it comes down to it, country has at its disposal about every product that a client will need for financial security all the way from taking care of their home and auto, taking care of their life needs in terms of any life events all the way to helping them plan and execute a retirement. When we come to insurance, it's a price play now. In GEICO, Progressive State Farm, they've all done a great job of making it a price play. We can save you 15 percent in 15 minutes. We can save you more in shorter bit at a time. Really a race to the bottom, and what we tried to do is ensure that we hit our target market with a value that they need. Our target market quite simply are households, that are middle income households that have assets to protect, but also have income that they need to secure for the future. In all that our value add is advice. We're definitely focused on more differentiation , across different dimensions. One is a cross transparency and clarity of product, one is a cross ease of use, real time and age here one is across the service and customer orientation, one is a cross regulatory environment and scheme. We're never going to be the cheapest alternative that someone can find, but we're going to provide great value, and we're going to be super transparent. If somebody is not happy with our service, they can go and find that other service, but we're going to try to provide so much value to the relationship and build so much brand value with the customer, and hopefully that's our differentiating. I think the challenge on the cost side always has to do with the fact that not being a bank. Banks just have a substantial cost advantage due to the fact that their cost of capital is virtually zero in today's environment. If they really wanted to play, they could probably win just on a pure cost perspective, at least for some subset of customers. We've probably been guilty of trying to be many things. We're in commercial, we're in agricultural insurance, we do all kinds of products, we've come to the conclusion that some things we shouldn't do for ourselves. Some things we actually broker. Our financial representatives sell products we don't manufacture. But, how do you keep from weaving around because there is a call for price. We're in a price driven society for maybe entry into some products, and there's a call out there. Can we be efficient enough to be competitive? But we say we'll never be the lowest cost will be close. We expect our financial representatives and their advice to be able to take us the rest of the way. There is a challenge though, of trying to be low cost, innovative and have great service. To me you'll end up in the undifferentiated middle. If people can't say why they choose you, then they won't know why they're staying. We go all the way to, can we have the highest levels of satisfaction, and we do in terms of claims like JD Powers, we're always up there in the very top with JD Powers and claims auto home, etc, where I sat there very high because of the fact is personalized service and commitment. But, there is a tendency to want to wander away from that and to see, to try to do more than that. I think you can do one thing world class. We tried to do two things, to do all three together, you'd probably have to be Apple to do all three. The overall value proposition of Fieldglass broke down into very specific buckets. Compliance, quality, cost savings, and cycle time. Different industries responded to different aspects of that messaging depending on really what was most important to them. In mid before 2008, if you look at the financial services firms and they were making huge margins, they didn't really care about cost savings. They cared mostly about cycle time because for them being first to market or being able to get something that faster was the most important thing to them, they didn't care about savings. They were willing to pay a premium for that? Absolutely, they were willing to pay premium both in the resources and also the platform that could best, in their mind, deliver the resources. If you looked at, let's say, natural gas, or if you looked at oil and gas industry, or if you look at the mining industry, they cared entirely about safety and compliance. Again, they were not really rate sensitive, and they weren't really even cycle time sensitive. They just wanted to make sure that compliance was done because safety was the most important thing to them because lives were at risk, if things weren't done correctly. Every industry had its own new odds.