Podcast: How Neuroscience Shapes Donor Decisions in Capital Campaigns

Season 5, Episode 20

Stories change how people think, feel, and choose to act, and the science behind that process has direct implications for fundraising success.

In this episode, Amy Eisenstein welcomes Cherian Koshy, Vice President at Kindsight and a leading voice on the neuroscience of generosity, to explore how brain science explains donor behavior in major gifts and capital campaigns.

This conversation equips fundraisers with science-backed clarity that strengthens storytelling, major gift conversations, and campaign structure while building trust with donors, boards, and leadership teams.

Listen Now:

---

Amy Eisenstein:
How do effective stories change our brain chemistry? And why might that be important to fundraising and capital campaigns? Stick around to find out.

Hi, I’m Amy Eisenstein. My partner and colleague, Andrea Khilstedt, is taking today off, but we have a very special guest. Today’s guest is Cherian Koshy, my friend and colleague who is a VP at Kindsight and a leading expert on the neuroscience of generosity. So you’re in for a treat today. Cherian helps mission-driven organizations harness behavioral science, neuroscience, and ethical AI to inspire authentic giving.

Why Write Neurogiving?

As treasurer of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Global Board and a member of the Giving Institute and Forbes Nonprofit Council, Cherian shapes the future of philanthropy through research, teaching, and practical frameworks that connect science, strategy, and the human spirit. And I am so excited because he is here because he’s written his very first book, Neurogiving, The Science of Donor Decision Making. And I’m super excited to talk to you about it today. Cherian, welcome.

Cherian Koshy:
Well, thanks for having me on, Amy. It’s so great to see you, and I’m super excited about this conversation.

Amy Eisenstein:
Yes, me too. So first of all, let’s start with a softball. Why did you write this book?

Cherian Koshy:
Well, honestly, I have spent a lot of time in fundraising and I have done a few things right and a lot of things wrong. And over the process of Not just trial and error, but also going to a lot of conferences. I’ve made the comment to many people that you’ve heard that I think my first conference, I ran into you but didn’t know that you were fundraising famous and you helped me go to the right conference sessions and whatnot.

But I was trying to figure stuff out and I didn’t know where to go and what to do, but I started cobbling together information and When things didn’t work, I found a lot of the answers unsatisfactory. And I found some research outside of the sector to be more helpful. But then some of the folks outside of our sector were putting together some things that were actually answering the questions in the last few years.

So I started putting those pieces of research together and then started doing some workshops and some sessions myself. And then people would ask me, hey, where’s that piece of research or something that you cited in that session that you did. And so this book is really a culmination of a lot of the stuff that I’ve been finding over the last several years. And from inside the sector and outside the sector, and you’ve had a chance to read it, it’s 220 source citations that from peer-reviewed studies, it’s not just like, oh, this is what I felt worked or something like that.

It’s really the evidence-based practice of what’s out there that demonstrates this is actually how people make decisions and why they make decisions. So we’re not just guessing at what’s working or why it’s working. We’re understanding truly how the brain makes a decision.

Amy Eisenstein:
Incredible. It was a great read, by the way. I learned a lot. So I’m a big fan of the book.

Cherian Koshy:
I’m paying a lot, Amy, so that’s a huge compliment. I appreciate that.

Amy Eisenstein:
Congratulations. It is such an accomplishment to write a book, but to write a book with so much… evidence-based research behind it is just really impressive. So we have some capital campaign-specific issues, but I’m going to start with more general fundraising.

How Fundraisers Should Think About Neurogiving

You know, early on in the book, you talk about effective stories and how they impact or change our brain chemistry, how they help I was going to say help donors make decisions, but that’s not the right way of framing it. So, you know, talk about stories and what we can do and how we think about neuroscience and neurogiving and why it’s important for fundraisers.

Cherian Koshy:
Sure. So I think you’re right that it does help them make decisions. I think that, well, first and foremost, it’s important to note that stories are actually the way that our brains understand concepts. And if we think about how we learn things when we’re kids, how we learn concepts, more importantly, how we learn values.

Stories are really the most ancient way of transferring information from one person to another, from generation to generation, and from community to community. That’s how real true values or real ideas were moved from people to people and groups to groups. And that’s because our brains understand narrative in a very different way. So it’s been in vogue to talk about stories in fundraising. And I think sometimes people think about stories at a surface level, like we should tell the story of something that our organization does, and it’s good to have stories. But what the book tries to do is take that to a much deeper level of understanding why stories matter.

And Actually, we could spend a whole podcast just talking about stories, but I’ll keep it at a really high level and describe a couple of things. One is the idea of neural coupling. Neural coupling is the concept that when I tell a story, your brain actually matches the brain wavelength, the brain… There’s brain synchronicity that happens when I tell the story and you’re listening to the story. So your brain is not only hearing the story, it’s actually feeling the story of Amira that’s drenched in water and is struggling to find… her way through a forest and is looking for a lost treasure that she’s, you know, is lost for, you know, whatever that might be, right? And so you’re not just hearing that story, you’re actually feeling that Amira’s wet and cold and is searching through the forest. And so you’re actually in the place where Amira is in that moment.

So when you think about how your organization’s telling a story, it’s important to recognize that the levels of the words that you use and how you describe the story actually shapes how your donor or your constituency, the group that you’re telling your audience is experiencing that moment. And when you contextualize that, actually, it’s really true what you said. The person on the other side of that story is making their decision, is understanding how to interact with the concept that you’re dealing with based upon the story that you tell. What is the thing that you want them to feel? How do you want them to react to that story based on the arc of that story?

So, the second piece that I want to get to, there’s the first piece of neural coupling that your brain and your heart rhythm connects with the other person. The second piece is that we’re either intentionally or unintentionally working with the other person to move them to action. So there’s no such thing as a neutral story. It’s either that we are truly moving them from one one place to another, we’re transporting them from one place to another, or we’re unintentionally moving them from one place to another.

So there’s a challenge that I see a lot of organizations where they just kind of put out a story and don’t realize that maybe they’re unintentionally moving a donor or a community member or a volunteer actually in the wrong direction.

Amy Eisenstein:
And that’s what I worry about.

Cherian Koshy:
And then the last piece about storytelling, which is probably, I would say, the most important thing that we can take away from the sections around storytelling and where we can, especially small organizations, can use storytelling to their advantage is that we tend to take stories and use them as an individual point in time, a thing that can be dispersed out there in the world.

And what I talk about, and I don’t remember which chapter this is, but you can find it in the index, is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I know not everybody loves the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and they’ve done some kind of not-so-great things in the last few years, but If you think about the characters in Marvel, Iron Man or Spider-Man or Thor or whatever, each one of these characters has their own story, but then they have these other stories that connect with other characters. So that tells this overarching narrative universe, individual characters grow and they develop and they interact with other people so much so that you kind of can’t wait to see what happens to those people and what the outcome is.

So the joke that I make in keynotes is, does your donor audience get that direct mail piece or that email and say, oh, honey, the nonprofit’s email just came in. Grab some popcorn. Let’s read this. Probably not. That’s not actually the case. But how do we create that sort of environment where they’re so excited to see, did Amira find the treasure that she was looking for? Did she get out of the forest? That’s the kind of anticipation that we want to build so that they’re super excited about what comes next. And ultimately, that we’re building stories so that it’s not just the audience that we’re speaking to, but the audience of our audience that we’re speaking to. And what I mean by that is, you know that your donors are potentially your most powerful advocates.

So therefore, the story that is repeated is the most valuable asset that you have. If you have a story that’s told from your perspective, that’s great, that’s cute. But can you create a story that your donor is able to repeat Yes. Another potential donor. That’s the winning opportunity. That’s what even a small organization can do to create something that is scalable, that’s leverageable in a way that, you know, especially for a capital campaign is something that advances the organization’s mission and cause in a way that a single fundraiser or a small organization can’t do on their own.

Amy Eisenstein:
Yeah. So let me see if I can even come close to repeating back a few of the key highlights. And of course, I did just read the book. So some of it, I think I know more than what you were able to just say in the last couple of minutes.

One thing is we really want to tell stories in a way that that speak to donors. You know, we think about storytelling as emotional, but there’s actually brain chemistry and science behind it as well. And so if we can get on the same literal and figurative wavelength and bring our donors or our participants, listeners along for the ride of the story that is super effective. I think, you know, I love the superhero analogy, the Marvel analogy, and I have watched them all with my kids. So I’m totally bought into the to the superhero, the Marvel universe.

But I think weaving different characters or story examples throughout your narrative over time and not just saying, okay, I’m going to tell the story of Susan in this newsletter, but then never talk about Susan again. No, come back to Susan. Tell us what happened to her. Tell us six months later, a year later, what’s going on in her life. And then through different channels. Right. So we want to learn about Susan on your social media, in your newsletter, in your, you know, various places. So I just love that. So thank you for sharing that.

What Happens in a Donor’s Brain When Considering a Big Gift

OK, so let’s sort of switch gears for a minute and talk about capital campaigns. Because that’s what’s near and dear to my heart. So capital campaigns rely on donors making big gift decisions, right? Big decisions around donations. So based on your research, talk about what’s actually happening in a donor’s brain when they consider a big leadership level or major or legacy type of gift. What’s happening during that decision making process that fundraisers need to know about?

Cherian Koshy:
Yeah, absolutely. So when someone considers a major gift and you measure that you do around major gifts, so it’s going to depend on the organization. So whether that’s a $5,000 gift or a $5 million gift, the same neural systems activate. And it’s important that first part of the book, we talk about those neural systems. It’s the identity network and the empathy circuit and the reward network That means that the donor’s not asking, can I afford this? They’re asking, is this who I am?

So in the first chapter, I talk about the difference between a consumer decision and a donor decision. I want to be careful about this. All donors are consumers because they buy things. Like every donor goes to the store and they buy things. But when they’re making a donor decision, a major gift decision in particular, the first question isn’t, can I afford this? It’s, does this speak to who I am? So the key is understanding the identity of that donor and understanding What does this gift say about who they are and how does this speak to something that’s related to the key pieces of their experience.

Now, that might be something related to nostalgia. It might be something in their past. So for a hospital system, for example, it might be that they received care from that hospital or someone that they loved received care from that hospital system. If it’s a university, it might be that they have fond memories of their alma mater or something like that. So those pieces are triggers to nostalgia. It may also be that they were helped by someone in some other sense, and they want to pay that back. Those are all neural shortcuts towards why someone might want to give.

But when we Focus on the affordability pieces, which sometimes fundraisers do, and they talk about the aspects of what the dollars can do and bypass the identity pieces, the emotional pieces. Then donors lack that sort of substrate on which they attach to. And when that is lacking… Then the financial picture becomes very easy for them to flip on. They start to get in the weeds around the technical pieces and the dollar amount, and they can easily lose track of, “Does this actually matter to me? Is this something that’s important?”

So this is going to sound sort of weird, but I would actually recommend that you don’t lead with the need, you lead with the identity. So what you’re helping to build is… the community, you’re helping to build something that’s more important than just the facility, the building or the project. That coming back to something that’s more permanent to them inside of them actually has a kind of, if you will, deeper attach rate. And the language that mirrors Who the donor aspires to be.

So you have this sort of nostalgia piece, but everyone has a story of who they want to be in the future, who they want to be when they grow up. That might be a legacy that they want to leave for themselves and for their kids. But it may just be that they are saying to themselves, I’m a generous person and I want to live out that identity as a general person. So the language needs to mirror, and I think this is chapter four, the language that mirrors what they say about themselves is actually really important.

So, for example, in a major gift, like silent face of a campaign, this week, and actually, we can talk about phases later and how important that is. But Sometimes in the early phases of a campaign, the silent phase, we will say something like, we need early commitment. That is true, but bad wording because that gets the person in the mentality of, we need your money now as a tactical piece. What we actually need to say is something like:

“You’ve always been someone who shows up first. This campaign will carry your fingerprints for decades. You’ve always been someone who shows up first, carries much more weight, much more identity weight than we need early commitments.”

Those are the pieces that align with a major donor and a transformational gift for those early pieces. There’s much more that we could get into, but I wanted to highlight those pieces around those kind of early gifts.

Amy Eisenstein:
Okay, so I want to clarify one thing and sort of correct another. So the quick correction is you said a silent phase of the campaign, and we prefer to say quiet phase because when you say silent, people think they can’t talk to anybody about anything. So, you know, quiet phase, whatever, semantics, maybe tomato, tomato, but quiet.

Cherian Koshy:
No, that’s helpful.

Amy Eisenstein:
You’re talking to people. You’re not totally silent about it. So that’s one silly little thing. The other thing, I just want to clarify something that I think I heard you say, but I want to make sure I understood it correctly. I think you said don’t lead with the need.

Now, what I heard or what I think to understand is don’t lead like we need a new building, right? If that’s the need. But the need is more places to educate children or a bigger after-school program to get kids off the streets and have more safe spaces to be after school. That’s also the need. So I just want to… Are we separating that? Because which…

Cherian Koshy:
Yes, I appreciate that clarification. So like, it’s not the square footage, right? It’s not the literal building as the need. It’s the identity-based need that someone cares about kids. They care about the environment. They care about this value. That’s the need that you want to focus on.

Amy Eisenstein:
Great. All right. Perfect.

Cherian Koshy:
Not your literal need for a building or for something like that. That’s where people get very weedy. It’s a thing that’s top of mind for the organization. They’re like, we need a new building.

Amy Eisenstein:
Yes, you do.

Cherian Koshy:
But why do you need a new building that aligns with the identity of this donor base that cares about the thing that leads you to the conclusion that you need a new building?

Amy Eisenstein:
You know, that there’s going to be no homelessness or hunger in the community or whatever the opportunity is that connects with the person’s identity. I love that. That they’re a person that cares about people and that they’re going to help find a cure for cancer or help feed people or whatever. And that gets to their identity. Did I understand it correctly? Yeah.

Cherian Koshy:
Precisely right. Exactly. I appreciate that clarification. That’s great.

Decision Friction and Generosity Decay

Amy Eisenstein:
Great. Okay. So you also in the book talk about decision friction. I love that sort of concept. I mean, I think we all sort of know it if we really think about it, but I’m so glad you’re bringing it to our attention. So I want to talk about decision friction and generosity decay. I want you to talk about what that means. So talk about What are the most common forms of friction inside capital campaigns or fundraising in general and how fundraisers can remove friction, decision friction, and keep donors engaged?

Cherian Koshy:
Sure. Sometimes people think about friction solely in terms of like technology or process, but those are actually symptoms. So I like to think about friction, well, the science talks about friction, as happening in the brain when motivation fades between the emotional moment and the decision moment. So we want those two things to happen as close as possible. But as fundraisers, sometimes we make that decision. We make those two moments far apart. And the thing that I say a lot in keynotes and workshops is that as fundraisers, as organizations, sometimes what we do is make generous brains slow down.

So the challenge is… Well, there’s a few examples of where this occurs. One is we wait too long after a great conversation. The donor is emotionally moved, and it’s at that moment where they’re ready to act, and we don’t follow up for some reason. We’ve lost that moment. So if we can… move that step forward, we can transition from where they’re feeling into their readiness to make a gift or to make a commitment or whatever it might be.

And that there’s all kinds of instances where I know that you’ve seen this happen, where there’s some kind of process in general fundraising or capital campaigns where there’s something that happens that gets someone super excited about the campaign, the activity, whatever it might be, and then they can’t do what they most want to do. The easiest example of this is your donation form.

So I talk a lot about that in general fundraising. Someone gets an appeal over social media, over email, over direct mail, and they go to your website and they want to make a donation. And then it takes too long for them to make that gift. It might be the form is too long or they fill out a bunch of things or they have to go find their credit card or whatever it might be. In the midst of that, the doorbell rings or the kid’s throwing a temper tantrum or they’re actually opening that email where most emails are opened or they’re in the store or something like that.

You got to think about where are people getting your email or watching something on social media? Do they have the ability to pull out a card and do those types of things? And what I say is that the enemy of good fundraising is not no. Not no, it’s not now. Doorbell rings, they go to go, you know, get the door and let the plumber in. Right. Oh, I’ll get back to that. I’ll fill in that information later. But then they have to get on a Zoom call with their friend Amy and then they forget about it. Right. Like, actually later, later never happened.

It’s not that they hate you. It’s not that they dislike your cause. It’s that it took too long and then they’ve forgotten about it. And then something else happens where, distracted, if you will, by all the other things. But then there’s another cause that they care about that comes in the way and maybe that’s easier for them to do. And this is the idea of generosity decay.

So this is actually… An outside scientist that did something specific in our sector, Dr. Katie Milkman is a professor at Wharton. She guest taught at our HBS class, and she did a study with some other colleagues of patients in a hospital, grateful patients, studied like 18,000 grateful patients where they did an appeal. after they were at the hospital and had a successful outcome. And what she found was, if you outreach to those patients quickly and ask them for a gift, you have a high likelihood of success. If you wait, 30 days or more is the equivalent of losing a matching gift. It’s the equivalent. The response rate drops by 50% or more a month after.

So there’s a time where people have this generosity inclination. They’re very excited about giving. But if you wait too long, then It’s not that they have no generosity. It’s that their likelihood to respond to that generosity impulse declines because life moved on.

Amy Eisenstein:
Right. Right. So important. So interesting. I mean, you know, I think that. In general, fundraisers are anxious about asking for gifts. I’m generalizing, not everybody. But they have a great cultivation conversation, and then they think, I’m not ready, I’m not sure, I’m not sure if the donor’s ready.

If they just say, all right, tomorrow, can we talk about a proposal or let me call you, you know, whatever, or are ready sort of on the spot, depending on the circumstances, of course. But in some cases, you know, or in many cases, as you’re talking about, while they’re excited, I think that’s so important. Instead of letting weeks or months go by, right?

Cherian Koshy:
Exactly. I mean, honestly, even days go by in some cases. It’s a risk when someone’s excited about doing something to let that excitement go. Because they’re at a state where they’re really excited about doing something. And here’s the thing that I want everybody to hear. They want to do something generous. Let them do the generous thing. Let them do the thing that they most want to do right now.

So don’t make it complicated for them to fill out this gigantic pledge form that looks like a tax return or have to notarize something with a mimeograph and a triplicate. Just make it easier for them to do it.

Amy Eisenstein:
Oh, Cherian, you just dated yourself. Our listeners don’t know what a mimeograph is. I’m just kidding. I love it.

Cherian Koshy:
Plenty of those like carbon paper, like nightmares. But, you know, sometimes small organizations are they just get in their own way because they feel like they need to have these processes of, you know, boxes and forms and things like that. Because of, I don’t know why, I mean, I’ve been in those organizations and I just don’t remember why we felt like we needed to do those types of things.

But decision fatigue is real. People just, if it’s too much work, and everybody listening has felt this, if it’s too much work, we just put it off. We just don’t do it. Because brains are cognitive misers. The example that I give in talks all the time is that your brain is basically functioning like a cell phone with 1% battery. It’s, it’s trying to do the fewest things possible and get the job done, but without spending any extra energy. So it’s not going to like, you Yeah. Yeah.

Amy Eisenstein:
All right, great. So I want to talk about, in the book, you talk about campaign thermometers. You mention them specifically and that they fill faster at the end of a campaign because people are motivated as the goal appears closer and people work harder as… You get closer to your goal. And it’s so interesting because we talk about that’s why it’s important to have the quiet phase and not go public until your campaign thermometer is very close to full. And that’s when you go public and get everybody excited and giving gifts.

Campaign Thermometers: Do They Fill Faster at the End?

So talk about campaign thermometers and this idea that they do fill faster at the end of a campaign and why you’ve found that.

Cherian Koshy:
I am so grateful you brought this up. So anyone who’s listening to this that is doing a capital campaign, take that section and give it to your board. Like, clap me down the source citations and give that to your board and to your executive leadership. Any other capital campaign consultants, you need to give this to every single one of your clients. If I had a nickel for every time that somebody doing a capital campaign said, we’re just going to do it our way and we’re going to launch the capital campaign publicly and we’re just going to figure it out, I could retire and I would have much more hair than I do today. It drives me up the wall.

This is the evidence for why you cannot do that. You cannot do that. It does not make sense from the science of how people make decisions. It’s called the goal gradient effect. When people are making decisions, if there is an empty campaign, an empty vessel of some kind, whatever it is, doesn’t matter, like a big goal, then people will say, oh, nobody has contributed. By the way, this works for peer-to-peer campaigns. It works for any type of thing. When it’s completely empty, if it’s zero, people look at that and say, I’m not going to make a difference. My money’s not going to fill this up. I’m not likely to have an impact here. I’m not going to be the first one to make a gift.

That is why a quiet campaign, quiet part of the campaign, is essential. You do not go to the general public with a $1 million, $5 million, $100 million campaign and say, all right, everybody gives because of the goal gradient effect. You do the quiet part of the campaign. To be able to basically, you’ve all heard this analogy of like the rocks and the gravel and the sand and the water. It’s the exact same concept. You put those rocks in and then you get to the, that’s your transformative gifts, the very large ones. Then you put in, you know, the next size rock scrabble or whatever. Those are your major gifts. And these are all phased so that everyone sees their part in it so that by the time you get to the public phase, you’re at 80, 90 percent of the campaign. And that shows those folks that their gifts actually do matter, and they do matter because they’re very close to moving the campaign all the way through to completion, and they can see very quickly and easily that my gift, whatever size, really put us over the edge.

So I go into detail around all of the science around that because it’s so, so important, certainly around capital campaigns and definitely around other types of campaigns that you might have. But there are so many organizations that do this, and I try not to be a should head and tell people that they should do things a certain way, but the science is so, so super clear about this that you should not do it the other way. It will, and I’ve seen this, seen this as well go wrong and there truly is no way to pull it back. There’s no way to unknow something. Right. To eliminate that knowledge of here’s where the campaign is.

The other piece of this that’s not in that section but is elsewhere is that when you launch a million-dollar campaign and you tell everyone and you don’t have the rocks in place and then the gravel and then the sand and then the water and you’re trying to raise You know, $500 over, you know, a million-dollar campaign because of the goal gradient effect. You now have a small number of gifts.

Let’s say you’re at 200,000 of the million-dollar campaign goal. You’re going to struggle to get to the finish line for any number of reasons. Everyone has seen this happen. You are going to frustrate those existing donors because the timeline is going to get much bigger than what you have initially anticipated. A campaign that was supposed to last 12 months or 18 months is now going to move to three years or four or five. I’ve seen it be even worse than that.

Amy Eisenstein:
And you’re not going to get to goal.

Cherian Koshy:
Right. And you’re not going to get to goal. But even worse, the costs are going to increase because the costs that you anticipated at the beginning are no longer the cost. So the people that gave you the money at the beginning are going to be upset with you and you are going to create all kinds of problems.

So if you have if you have not started your campaign yet, please, for the love of all things good and holy, do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not do anything until you understand the goal gradient to that. I could get up on a chair and all the things.

Amy Eisenstein:
I love it. I love it. So here at Capital Campaign Pro, we talk about the strategic order of solicitation. And we talk about starting top down. You start with your biggest gifts. These are the rocks. And inside out, from those closest to you out.

So never public phase. Quiet phase first, then public phase. There’s a real science to this, which is what you’re pointing to. I never had the science to back it up, and now I do. Thanks to you, Terrian. So I know it works over hundreds and hundreds of campaigns. And now you’ve put science to back it up. So I truly, truly appreciate that.

Final Takeaway

Okay. Cherian, what’s one key takeaway that you want to leave with listeners? What’s the most important takeaway from your book or thing that they can do right now to apply this neuro giving concept?

Cherian Koshy:
Honestly, what you just said is really the point of the book. It’s that there are things that we probably know that work, but we might not know why it works. And this isn’t a, you know, sharing musings on things that work. It’s a portable desk reference of the research that explains why. Why stuff works so that you if you don’t know what works or why you can take this book and understand as a primer.

Here’s what works and why and unpack that and follow the research. If you do know what why or if you do know what works, you now can take the book and as a thud factor, drop it on an executive leadership. you know, desk or on a board member’s desk and prove to them, here’s the science that says that what I’m doing is right. Please let me do, let me know to be right.

Amy Eisenstein:
I love that. It’s a mic drop of a book. That’s what Cherian just said, everybody. All right, Cherian, where can people find the book and where can they find you?

Cherian Koshy:
It is everywhere that books are sold, wherever you prefer to buy books on Amazon or Bookstuff or anywhere. And The book has some pre-order bonuses if you can get those still at neurogivingbook.com. And then if you would like me to come speak about the book or something else, I’m at cheriankoshy.com and all the social media places as well.

Amy Eisenstein:
Wonderful. Cherian, thank you so much for being here, but more importantly, for writing this book and doing all the research so that we didn’t have to. I do really appreciate that because it’s all in this book, beautifully written, easy to understand and digest.

So thank you. Thank you for being here. And I can’t wait to keep hearing more and more about it.