[MUSIC] You know, particularly in the performing arts, we think a lot about performance metrics, but they're different, I mean they're subjective. If your box office is zero then that's not a subjective measure. But how do you balance the need for hard metrics and the softer ones, the more subjective ones? >> I think you need a little bit of both. I think you have to have an instrument, a performance measure instrument that's gonna have in it some real data that people can latch onto and know that it's hard and certain. Those are gonna be the financial metrics, those ratios I talked about, but there has to be room for some metrics in here that are gonna be a little bit more qualitative. They're gonna talk about the stakeholder's perceptions. They're gonna be more about how the organization is viewed and how it's doing in the eyes of others. There's nothing wrong with having both objective and more subjective metrics in it together. I think it gives you a bigger and fuller picture of how their organization is performing. But you're right, in some sense, that we tend to think that those hard metrics are the ones to watch, and that often leads to a certain amount of asymmetry in these performance measurement tools. >> Right. And I think there are times when people don't want to measure as much of the soft metrics, because they're not entirely sure they wanna hear what the answer is. >> Or it's expensive. Sometimes it's very expensive to go out and collect survey data, to do staff and volunteer interviews. To do the work you need to get those elements that I described that are part of a good scorecard. That actually takes time, effort, and money. And a lot of times people just don't have the patience or will. I actually think it's money that's very well invested. >> Yeah, seems like it's expensive not to do it. >> It is, long term you pay a price if you're not measuring performance sensibly. >> Good. [MUSIC]