In this episode, Chris Anderson — CEO of 3DR, a drone software company — shares insights from his career and entrepreneurial ventures. Harvard Business Publishing’s Chief Product and Innovation Officer Josh Macht facilities. To get best practices from other innovators, watch other videos from our Impact main stage.

Additional Resources:

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kaitlin Milliken: Hey! You’re listening to Innovation Answered, the podcast for corporate innovators. I’m Kaitlin Milliken from Innovation Leader. We’ll be back with a new season in the spring. But, we wanted to share this bonus episode with you in the meantime.

Today, we’ll take a deep dive into the future of mobility with a special focus on unmanned aerial vehicles. More commonly known as drones, UAVs have been used to fight forest fires in California, deliver packages in rural China, and transport life-saving blood to clinics in Africa. But — while UAVs have great potential — they also face regulation across different levels of government.

Chris Anderson — CEO of 3DR — shared his experience working with UAVs as both a hobbyist and entrepreneur on the main stage at Innovation Leader’s 2019 Impact event. Anderson has been the CEO of the drone software company since 2012. He is also the founder of DIY Drones and DIY Robocars. These open source communities teach users how to build their own high-tech vehicles. He’s also the former Editor in Chief at Wired magazine.

During the conversation, Anderson also discusses self-driving cars and the problem with innovation in Silicon Valley. The session is moderated by Josh Macht, Harvard Business Publishing’s Chief Product and Innovation Officer.

[CLAPPING]

Joshua Macht: You studied computational physics, you played in a band called REM. So…

Chris Anderson: That we’re going to have to hear about.

Joshua Macht: And it wasn’t the REM that at least that I was thinking about. So and along with 3DR, you also run the Drone Code, the Linux Foundation for drone software project, and DIY Robocars, which has 10,000 members, if I have that right. And last but not least, a published author with Harvard Business Review, which is great when we love him for that.

So, kind of amazing all the different things that you’ve done. And I’m trying to fit it all together with where you’ve now gone with this whole drone movement. And I’d love it if you could talk a little bit to start us off on how things started, how you got it all going, and also what you maybe would do different if you were starting this today.

Chris Anderson: So this was the case, I joke, of parenting gone horribly wrong. It’s 2007. I’m the editor of Wired. I’ve got five kids. My wife and I are former scientists. We live in Silicon Valley. We try to get the kids interested in science and technology and just abject failure. They’re just not interested.

So I thought, “I’ll just keep trying.” At Wired, these products would come in for review. And you could take them home as long as you agree to write a review. So one Friday, a Lego Mindstorms robotics kit came in. Has anyone used Lego Mindstorms? Great. And a radio controlled airplane came in, and I thought, “This is gonna be awesome. We’re going to build a robot on Saturday. We’re going to fly a plane on Sunday.”

The kids are like, “I don’t know. But you know, we’ll see.” So on Saturday, we build the robots. And if any of you have done this with your kids, you spend all morning sort of sticking the Lego together, and programming, and then you get a little car that very slowly moves and then sees a wall and walks back. And the kids are like, “You’ve got to be kidding me. Right? We have seen Transformers. Where the frickin lasers?

Fairpoint. Robots…computer graphics have ruined robotics, because you just can’t compete with CG. The real world is messy. So I’m like, “Okay, that kind of sucked. But tomorrow we’re going to fly a plane in the park, go to YouTube acrobatics, etc.” Get to the park. Right into a tree. Which also sucked.

And my kids are like, “That was predictable, Dad. Science and technology is boring. You’re a nerd.” I had to buy the ice cream. And I thought, “How could that have gone better?” Clearly what I needed was a cooler robot and a better flying plane. And I thought, “Well, a flying robot would be awesome. What’s a flying robot?” And it turns out in 2007, maybe still today, if you google flying robot, the first result is drone. You’re like, “I guess that’s what a drone is. Wait, what’s a drone?” You google drone, and it’s basically a plane with a brain. Back in those days, they were planes. Today they would be copters. It’s got a brain and flies itself. And then, “Okay, well, what’s an autopilot?” You Google that, and it’s got sensors and software. And that’s kind of the stuff that’s in the Lego Mindstorms box. So let’s just do it. “Kids, one last show. We’re gonna make a Lego drone.”

So we just stuck together the sensors, and did a little programming, and stuck it in the plane, now retrieved from the tree. We took the field the next weekend, and it flew semi autonomously. It didn’t crash. Today that plane is in the Lego museum and Billund Denmark as the world’s first Lego UAV. Back in those days, I posted it on Slashdot, which was a big thing back then. It went super viral. Everyone thought it was super cool. My kids were humiliated because I had a picture of one of them holding the plane and which is now still to this day, there’s really only one photo Daniel on the internet, and that’s him just woken up, hair messy holding the plane and he just will never forgive me for this.

Back in those days, drones were like military industrial stuff, global hawks predators. And I thought it should not be possible for nine-year-old children to build a drone around the dining room table with the toy parts. What just happened? Back in those days you would create a social network, which I did. I called it DIY drones, on the grounds that you should never put the letters DIY in front of a weapon. So that’s exactly what I did.

And it took off. And the rest is history. It turned into a huge open source community, one of the largest robotics ones in the world. Then a big industry. Today, the DIY days are largely behind us. They’re mostly commercial. But, we’ve taken that same approach and applied them to self driving cars, which we can talk about later.

Joshua Macht: Before we dive too deep. I could not have done what you did. There’s no way. So, today, could someone with a more limited technology skills be doing that? Has technology changed that much?

Chris Anderson: Oh, yeah. I mean, today, just buy the parts on Amazon. I mean, literally go to Amazon. All those things we made — autopilots and motor controls — it’s just on Amazon. The very same ones that we designed in those early years, now just go on Amazon and look for pixhawk or things like that. They’re all there. Just stick them in an aircraft now.

Joshua Macht: And the other thing is that the community element is pretty fascinating, especially as it relates to innovation. Because as someone who’s built a lot of websites over time for magazines, community slowly became a dirty word. We just can’t do it. You’ve had success with it. You’ve also been on the magazine side of it. So what is it that you’ve learned and how that relates, especially to companies as they think about innovation?

Chris Anderson: Sure, well, I’ve never had success building a media community. I’ve had success building or leading teams that build media websites. Interestingly, when I was running, Wired, we owned Reddit. They were operating in our offices. I can take zero credit for it. They said don’t bother us, and we didn’t bother them. But that was a successful community.

Subsequently, I built 300,000 member communities around this, including big open source development communities. And all of them have one thing in common, which is there’s something to do. So there are projects to do. There’s code to write. There’s bugs to fix, etc. I find that in general, that’s what’s difficult about media communities is that by and large, they’re passive. You read. Whereas something like Reddit, you do. So I think that giving people a project they can call their own is crucial because once they do it, then they want to share it, then they want to contribute to others.

I mean, the biggest trick we ever discovered in in open source communities and, we now have two of them — one of the Linux Foundation, one not — is that once someone submits something. First of all, people submit ideas. No one cares, like, “I’m not interested in you stupid idea.” Then, they submit code. And they’re a little bit interested. Then some other person then uses that code and starts commenting on what’s wrong with it. And at that point, you’ve got something. Basically, an idea is nothing. Code is something. Code that one other person has used is something. That’s the atomic unit of community.

Then, once someone else is using it, then we said, “We can include this in the official distro.” And at that point, we’ve got them. Because in exchange for us, let’s say anointing their project as being official, they now have a lifetime requirement to support it.

There’s something of progress there. They’re moving the product or the the idea forward. Every open source contribution is like a fun project gone horribly wrong. Because the moment people use it, now it’s a job. And you wake up every morning, and it’s like dealing with the burnout and the demoralizing because it’s like everyone’s looking a gift horse in the mouth. Everybody wants you to add features and fix your bugs, etc. So we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to keep people having fun at what’s become a job.

Joshua Macht: Sort of different but related. The idea of crowdsource innovation, which is another fun one. As someone who’s done a lot of innovation, that one gets thrown at me a lot, and I’m not always quite sure what to do with it, or how it can be successful. You probably can extrapolate and get there and maybe have experience with it.

Chris Anderson: So I have moved away from that. I think crowdfunding’s still a thing with Kickstarter, etc. I think it’s a fundamental flaw the way people think about crowdsourcing innovation. They think there’s going to be like a company that puts out a challenge. And then they source it to the crowd. And then the crowd responds to that challenge. And there’s been a few successes. But by and large, it does not work. I’ve been part of many of them with GE and Lockheed Martin, etc.

By and large, you say, “Oh, here’s the prize, and you’ll get celebrity and whatever.” By and large, people don’t want to work on your stupid problem. They want to work on their stupid problem. If you can, then you can pay them. But then you’re not really crowdsourcing anymore. You’re just contracting.

Joshua Macht: And it’s related to two other things that I wanted to touch on. One is, we were talking a little bit about the outposts that companies bring to the Valley or to San Francisco. So I’d love to talk about that. And maybe you can touch on that. And then we can kind of move into your Robocars thing for a little bit, because I think that’s an interesting relationship to big companies as well. But outposts, the success of it and big companies and just your thoughts on it.

Chris Anderson: Sure. Well, this is going to be the controversial part because I’m gonna cut a little close to home. So we see a lot of big companies coming to Silicon Valley with delegations on a learning tour. Maybe some of you who’ve done this. We see a lot of companies setting up a small one or two person outpost to get early radar. And then you see some venture capital efforts as well.

I think by and large, they’re all failures. That’s okay. I mean, most startups and innovation is failure. But these are a specific kind of failure. First of all, the one thing I’ve learned about innovation is that you learn by doing. No offense. You don’t learn by sitting in a room like this. You learn by doing. If I’ve taught you anything, go home and do some cool project with your kids or with yourself, etc. Everything I’ve done, it basically involved learning through the fingers. Trying something out. And then it’s like, “Oh, there’s all sorts of cool AI, deep learning things you can do right now!” Just try it.

So the idea of a tour where people tell you about the magic of Silicon Valley, I don’t think that’s that’s effective. The outposts where you find good ideas… The people who are assigned to the outposts will certainly get good ideas. They’ll meet with lots of startups. The problem is not there. The problem is what we call impedance matching, which is getting the culture of the startups to fit in with the culture of the big companies. It just gets lost. And there is a general message that… So we’re venture backed. There’s a lot of companies who are venture backed. I’m exaggerating a little bit but not entirely. The general message from your venture capital investors is do not talk to big companies. They are time wasters.

The only thing you’ve got is time. They operate slow. You operate fast. The number of meetings, you’re going to have to go through to get something done with a big company… So there’s a general sense don’t talk to big companies. And I think it’s largely because of the process. Big companies are slow. And that’s the one thing we don’t have.

Then the third one is probably most effective, which is the which is the corporate venture, strategic investment. And that can work. It has huge limits. Limit one is that they tend to be quite small — 500K, etc. The only people who would be interested in that are really seed stage companies, and they’re the ones who had the biggest impedance match problem with the big companies. Problem number two, is that they’ve promised you, “Here’s a little money but don’t worry, we can give you lots of intros to the sales channel, whatever.” The people the sales channel couldn’t care less. It’s like, “I don’t know who these little companies are. I don’t have time for this.” The KPIs of the sales team are not the same as the KPIs of the venture team. So typically, those introductions don’t go very far.

And the third one, and this one’s quite subtle, is that typically a venture capital investor will get in seed. And then they stick around and support you for A, B, C and beyond. And the strategics just aren’t set up to do that. So follow on finance is a really important thing in venture and just not an important thing in strategic. I mean, we’ve taken a lot of strategic funding. We happen to love our strategics. We have Autodesk and Qualcomm and Western Digital and there’s a few others. And they were all great, but they were largely great for two reasons. One, they gave us a logo, which was credibility. So that was nice. And in the very beginnings, they at least introduced us to one team who was probably also kind of incubated within the big company. So it’s like, “Hey, we can’t help you with the sales channel. The reality is that it’s not going to happen. But there is this team inside the company who’s doing R&D and maybe you guys could be their customer. Maybe you could push their technology maybe you could inject a little bit of startup energy into that one little team.” And that works for a year.

Joshua Macht: But in some ways, your Robocar thing does bring in big companies in an interesting way into the innovation process with a much smaller, more nimble operation.

Chris Anderson: Exactly. It’s not a tangent actually, you’re quite right. So, the era of DIY Drones is kind of over in the sense we’ve won. You can buy them in Walmart. They work, right? You don’t need to DIY them anymore, but you probably can’t buy a self driving car. Well, if you can, lucky you. But the rest of us can’t. You can read about them, but you can’t do them. And I’m all about doing, right? So how do you participate in self driving cars? And so we just said, “Well, we kind of have this model we just put the letters DIY in front of something interesting. Let’s just see what happens.” And we realized that the history of automotive innovation has always been through racing. Ferrari, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW — it’s always been through racing until now.

Until now, the only important area of cars that has not been innovated on the racetrack is the self-driving ones. Because they’re very expensive. That shouldn’t be a problem because race cars are expensive too. I don’t think anybody wants to have the PR hit of having a self driving car. Now there’s one thing called Robo race, but it’s super constrained, and they don’t even race wheel to wheel and in reality they actually have drivers in them most of the time. But in general, the big car companies are not racing autonomous cars because they’re not ready. So we’re like, “I can see the problem. They’re big. They’re dangerous. It’s a lot of money. What would happen if we just use that same technology at 1/10 scale? And we’ll just do it for fun. We’ll put a price at $400. You can’t spend more than $400 on the car.”

And that what ended up is that we have races every weekend around the world, about 10,000 members and what’s happened is that it’s become a proxy war for the big car companies. And so these teams, and they’re all amateurs, some of them ended up using computer Vision like Tesla, some of them do LIDAR, like Waymo. Some of them are using deep learning… They’re all using deep learning. And we end up with this sort of microcosm of the big of the big car company philosophies. But we’re racing them wheel to wheel, that’s cars on the same track, at scale speeds with 280 miles an hour. We just beat the fastest human last month.

It’s just super fun. Nobody gets hurt. It’s not expensive, etc. So we’re like, this is a great way to experiment with aggressive driving, which is what Racing’s always been about. But it’s not happening in self driving cars. It’s a great way to get people involved. And, to your point, it turned out that the big companies who wanted to preach AI and want to educate people, realized that a great way to learn AI is to actually do it in the real world. So now Amazon just released something called Deep Racer, which you can buy today. It’s a 1/10 scale autonomous car that uses the reinforcement learning model on the AWS cloud. Nvidia has released three cars — Jet Racer, Jet Bot, and something else. And so now you’re seeing these companies are really interested in AI actually using self driving cars in competition as a way to be inclusive and get people involved in something really tactical and fun.

Joshua Macht: At larger companies, one of the hardest things… So you talk a lot about just putting fingers on keyboards, trying things. I think we aspire to innovate in that way. And we try to say like, “Let’s try small.” But somehow or another always turns into these big, big projects. What do you think we’re really fighting against there? And are there lessons we can be taking away from something that you’re doing?

Chris Anderson: So most recently, Lockheed Martin, asked me the same question. They said, “We really want to hire great talent. We want to bring people into Lockheed Martin who have AI skills, what can we do to be charismatic?” And then they came up with the idea of drone racing, which they called Alpha Pilot. And they put a lot of money behind it, and they did it exactly the way a big company would, which is that they got Nvidia to sponsor. And they got the drone racing league to do something. And they got great judges and there’s a prize. It was like a million dollars total and then these events around the country. And they just had the first one.

Of the eight teams that finally made it through the judging, none finished. One of them made it through two rings. The other one was made through one ring. They went slower than any drone racing competition I’ve seen in the last 10 years. And it’s been going on for a long time. I would say it’s basically a failure. And not because the teams weren’t good and not because Lockheed Martin isn’t good. It’s because it wasn’t organic. They ended up spec-ing out the vehicle, deciding what it was gonna be a Jetson Xavier board. They’re going to use a drone racing league simulator. And they designed it the way you would as a corporate product. It was inauthentic. It was unfamiliar, and it was basically I would say, year one was a failure. Now, I think year two will be better etc. Whereas the stuff we do in the outside world is completely organic. We don’t over spec it. We don’t over budget it. We don’t even tell people what to do.

Our secrets of racing communities, including real ones, is time and place. Sometimes Wi-Fi, sometimes electricity, sometimes coffee. Every now and then, donuts. But basically time and place. Do you know the story of stone soup?

Joshua Macht: No, go for it.

Chris Anderson: You guys know the story of stone soup?

Joshua Macht: Yeah, sorry.

Chris Anderson: Okay. I won’t tell you the story of stone soup. For those of you who don’t know the story of stone soup, we show up with a cauldron and water and a vision. Then the community or the project’s emerge. And I think the problem is, the big companies show up with Campbell Soup. And they get Campbell Soup.

Joshua Macht: I think it’s true. I like the organic piece. I think the other thing that we kind of fall victim to is we’re not really clear about what we’re trying to learn early on. What I’ve found is, and I don’t know if other people find this to be true, is that the more crisp you are on “We want to understand this,” you actually can do smaller things. And you probably do that intuitively. Like, “You just want to learn X, Y, and Z? The easiest way to learn that is this.” Because you have to. You have no soup.

Chris Anderson: We sometimes don’t even know what we want to learn. So instead of we do some things like like, “Beat the other guy.” For years, we had competitions, where we’d like back in the early days drones say, “Do a figure eight. Do a figure eight faster. Simulate, endangered species detection.” And they still have that today. We don’t really know what we’re going to learn out of this. But we know that all the various techniques to solve the competition will be interesting, and we’ll find ways to use it.

Joshua Macht: I just want to pivot back to the drones themselves and where we are with data collection. Where is this going? And I’m curious, where are you going next? What’s next for you?

Chris Anderson: Phase one was the sort of technology, where we kind of figured out how to get drones to work, the autopilots, the code, etc. Phase two was…commercial use wasn’t allowed until 2016. So we could only do recreational use and so the drones we have are probably recreational drones. You’re probably using video. That was the only thing that was allowed. In 2016 commercial use was allowed, and then the question is, “Okay, fine. Drones solve problems. What are they good for? We know what satellites are good for. We know what aerial imagery is good for. If you can get even lower, higher resolution, cheaper, more often, what would that be good for?”

And the answer is, we know in broad terms. We want to measure the world so we can manage it. But which part of the world, eventually ending up on construction with Autodesk. Geospatial stuff which is like land management with Ezri.

And now a lot of what we do is driven by climate change. Climate change is really stressing our infrastructure, our dams, our levees, our waterways. Forest fires, we’re sitting here in forest fire season right here. There’s forest fires that are being fought with drones that can see through the smoke and see what the fires are. So we’re now zeroing in on the application. I haven’t flown a drone for two years. And that’s because A) they fly themselves and B) I’m entirely focused on the use of the data.

So I spent a lot of time out there with a hard hat and a vest talking to construction workers with the US Army Corps of Engineers, about like levees. So that’s where the industry went. And as far as right now, the regulations have been a big barrier. The reason you don’t have drone delivery today or you can’t fly an air taxi here is largely FAA regulations. And for good reason.

So there’s two ways to solve it. One is you can sit down with the FAA before the drones exist and come up with a way to do it. And that went nowhere. The other is you can put 2 million drones in the air and some in your hands. Get the genie out of the bottle. And then the FAA says, “Oh, gosh, we have a problem here. What are we going to do?” And then they bring you. They brought me and other people from the industry in. The 737 Max was also a big driver that basically the way we’ve regulated aircraft and the airspace is outmoded. For all sorts of reasons. Not just the number of vehicles that are going to be getting out there. But also the fact that aircraft are now software, not hardware. So drones are now becoming a testbed for the future of aviation certification, airspace regulation, etc.

And so I spend a lot of my time in DC. We have a meeting at NASA Ames on Monday, to try to figure out how to take this crisis of 737 Max and the challenge of ubiquitous drones and turn it into a way to reinvent the regulation of the air.

Joshua Macht: We can chat more about that. I was saying to you before, just flying drones around my own neighborhood and noticing even when they’re high up above people get upset. And I certainly wouldn’t bring them down to roofline because I want to still have friends in my neighborhood. And not have them think I’m a complete weirdo. But you’re saying that that’s there’s nothing about the law that has anything to do with that really.

Chris Anderson: Everything’s changing with technology. I’m going to leave you one lesson about the Bay Area, which you probably already heard: For better or for worse, Silicon Valley is an ask forgiveness, not permission culture. So you do it first and then figure it out… You innovate in the gray zone. So obviously, if it’s illegal, you don’t do it. And if it’s legal, somebody has already done it. But if it’s in the gray zone, that’s where you play around.

So we did drones… Recreational was allowed but commercials not. So we did recreational. It’s export controlled. It’s regulated as a weapon, unless it’s public domain. So we open sourced it. You have to go through the FCC, unless you’re selling to developers. So we sold to developers. And we found all these little gray zones. And the scooters, PayPal, Airbnb, Uber — these are all examples of innovation in the gray zone, where they asked forgiveness, not permission.

Right now the airspace is a little bit on the fence. So you have a decent vertical leap, you’re in federal airspace. The state and local does not control the air. However, privacy is done at the local level, except for when it comes to the air and you have no privacy from the air. As you can see your house from Google Street View, the satellite view. You have no privacy from the air.

Now back in the days, it was some satellites and you’re naked in your backyard, you might be a pixel. But now as the resolution is getting better and better, this fact that you have no privacy privacy from the air is becoming a real issue. And we just have not figured out how to regulate it. We solve that problem in the meantime by not flying over people.

So if you’re flying over your over your neighbors, you’re actually violating that violating FAA rules on safety grounds, but not on the privacy ground.

Joshua Macht: Well, you talked about being in DC a fair amount. I like the way you call three lettered agencies, like the FBI and CIA. And I wonder how much time you spend with those agencies. Because you have talked about the darker side of what happens with these things. If you just talk a little bit about what that is, and how you’ve dealt with it, how you feel about it, that’d be great.

Chris Anderson: Sure. I mean, when you put the letters DIY in front of something that’s thought of as a weapon and open source the military industrial complex, what could possibly go wrong?

Anytime you have an open platform, it will be used for good and for evil. Cell phones and computers can be used for viruses or things like that. But by and large, you hope the good outweighs the evil.

We proactively reached out to the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and everybody and said, “Look, we just want you to know what we’re doing.”

And they’re like, “Thanks.”

We said, “Should we be doing anything differently?”

And they’re like, “We can’t think of anything.”

They’re not gonna tell us to put a backdoor on open source software because it wouldn’t be used. It would be an obvious backdoor. And if it’s a precompiled binary, no one’s going to use it. So they couldn’t think of anything to do and they kept coming to see us. And we would literally have monthly check ins with the FBI. And they’re like, “Here’s the deal. Here’s the one thing we can do. If anyone in our community is doing something, and it seems like just a stupidly bad idea. Like, ‘I want to fly, you know, 50 kilograms, three kilometers or 30 kilometers.’ I cannot think of any good reason to do that.”

So we’d say, “Anytime anybody in the community doing something irresponsible, we will call up the FBI and tell them.” We were super transparent about that. I don’t know what they did, we didn’t have a lot of information, but that’s what we would do.

And then as things moved on, they would show up every month. They would say, “Hey, here’s some evidence about people using it dropping drugs into prisons.” And then there was a bad couple years where they would bring us the folders of ISIS using our stuff. And we were one the main drone supplier to ISIS. That’s not intentional. We certainly didn’t admit that. And what happened is that they’d just buy them from Amazon. They download the software. And it’s like, “That sucks. You know, guys, is there anything you’d like us to do?” And I thought they would put a gun to my head…

They’d tell me that they couldn’t think of anything to do. “Just keep us informed. Help us understand what’s going on here. And maybe we’ll develop counter drone measures, etc.” Now the main supplier to ISIS is DGI. So it’s not our problem anymore.

Joshua Macht: This is not making me feel any safer. I don’t love the response of, “you’re good.”

Chris Anderson: I think that everybody who’s in the technology industry is going to find out that their technology is used for purposes they hadn’t anticipated. And if you’re Google, or you know, or your Facebook, as we just saw, eventually you will be asked to take measures.

And if you’re an open source community, it’s really not clear what measures we can take.

Joshua Macht: Is this stuff you thought of though, when you kicked off when you were doing this?

Chris Anderson: I thought about it exactly one day after I did this. So we got the Lego drone. We put it on Slashdot, picture of my kids, and like a zillion responses, including the response, “You realize that the drones are export controlled, and that by putting something on the internet, you’ve exported it. And you’ve committed a NITAR violation.”

And I was like, “This is going to be awesome.” So I was still in the media. And I was like, “If my children have weaponized Lego around the dining room table and Congress decides to bring a nine-year-old to explain themselves, this is the best story I could imagine.” But it never happened.

Joshua Macht: Well, thank you so much. I’m getting the signal here. So I want to thank everyone. I want to thank our guests Chris Anderson. Big round of applause.

[CLAPPING]

[ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]

Kaitlin Milliken: We hope you enjoyed this bonus episode of our show. If you want to see more main stage sessions from our Impact conference, visit innovationleader.com/videos. While you’re on our website, you can also grab a ticket for one of our upcoming events, where you can learn from other innovators in person. For more updates on our show, be sure to subscribe to Innovation Answered wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening and see you next time.