All right. Right on time. Thanks everyone. I'm just gonna start by reading the classic disclaimer. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. So with that, good morning everyone. Welcome to day two of the Morgan Stanley 2024 Global Consumer and Retail Conference. I'm Megan Clapp. I'm one of the consumer analysts here at Morgan Stanley, and I'm really pleased to be here today with WK Kellogg, the company's CEO, Gary Pilnick, and CFO, Dave McKinstray. For any of you who are unfamiliar, but though I'm sure most of you are familiar, WK Kellogg is a cereal manufacturer that completed its spin from Kellanova in October of last year. So, you know, Gary, Dave, thanks again for joining. Of course. Maybe we could start on that topic, the spin. It's been a bit over a year since you completed the spin. Can you start by maybe just reminding investors the rationale, touch on the progress you've made in the last year, and then maybe discuss the state of the business today? Sure, Megan. Thanks for having us. Perfectly appropriate that we start the morning with WK Kellogg. I'm sure a lot of you did that as well. So we appreciate the time slot. Feels perfectly appropriate. But in terms of the spin, it, it's been about a year. We're finishing up our very first year as an independent company. If you take a step back and think about why we did this, my old role at the Kellogg Company was running M&A. So part of the thinking was sum of the parts. And the idea was when you split up the two companies, now called Kellanova and WK Kellogg Co, the sum of the parts was greater than the whole. And part of that was just the multiple trading and what was happening with the two businesses. But when you stare at what ended up being Kellanova and WK Kellogg Co, you had two very distinct businesses. It's why the sum of the parts worked. You had two distinct businesses with two very distinct strategies, and we needed balance sheets behind it. So the idea was once you split it up and you said to, "Hey, WK Kellogg Co, we're gonna let you create your own strategy, decide what your business outcomes are gonna be, give you the balance sheet to invest behind it, you'll do better as an independent company than you would be being part of a global company." Now, that's counterintuitive because the Kellogg Company, $15 billion, presence in over 180 countries. How is it that we're gonna be better separated than we were with them given all their muscle? And for us, absolutely clear that that was the case. And if you think about what we've been doing over the last year, you asked about how we're feeling right now in terms of the spin. I think we would say is we're really pleased with where we are right now. If a year ago we would've said, "This is where you'd be one year from now," we would say, "You know what? That would be a successful year." And let me explain. Spins are hard. They're very hard. And they're particularly hard when a company is integrated. At the Kellogg Company, we had a $10 billion North American business fully integrated with Eggo and Cheez-It and Pop-Tarts and Rice Krispies Treats and Pringles and cereal. Manufacturing, sales, all the IT systems, payroll, that had to get separated. So step one is we've gotta separate from Kellanova. All that work has been going on. We feel really good about where we are right now. We were told when we were doing that it's so hard, just get that done, make it as basic as you can, and get to the other side, and we said, "No, we're gonna unplug and separate, but we're also gonna transform." And we said we need to transform 'cause we need to operate very differently 'cause it was a deprioritized business before, so we're gonna transform just about all of our commercial capabilities. We're transforming marketing, we're transforming sales, and we're transforming supply chain, so we unplugged and we transformed. At the same time, we needed to integrate five different businesses. Almost done, I promise, Megan. We had to integrate five different businesses. Pre-spin, our business was not one integrated business that we lifted and shifted. We had Canada, the Caribbean, U.S., food away from home, and even Kashi and Bear Naked were separate. We needed to bring that all together. So that got integrated this year. And I think the part that we're most pleased about is while we're executing for today and building for today, we're also building for tomorrow because we're building a platform for growth. So while we're separating, we have a direct sales force that we believe is scalable. We have a dedicated distribution system that we believe is scalable, and we have capabilities that come from a $15 billion global company. We didn't go from zero to $2.7 billion. We went from $15 billion to $2.7 billion. So we have capabilities in omni and marketing and R&D and digital analytics that we believe we could take into the future. So we're really pleased about where we are. We're almost a year into our first full-year as a publicly traded company. We're pleased about the results we've already been able to communicate. We feel good about how we're executing on our strategic priorities. So we're executing today and feel good about what we could do tomorrow as well. Awesome. Really, really helpful. Great place to start. A lot in there that we can definitely get into. Maybe let's just talk about the cereal category, your outlook for the category maybe in the near and more medium term. So, you know, you've talked about targeting stable sales from 2024- 2026. The cereal category, you know, historically has declined a bit over, you know, the last several years. So can you walk through maybe the drivers of how you think about targeting stable sales and how you plan on outperforming the category? No, it's a wonderful question. We start with, well, what is our model? I said a moment ago we had two separate businesses that had distinct financial algorithms. What's ours? Ours is in our first horizon as we optimize our cereal business, we're driving a stable top line while expanding our margin considerably, outsize margin expansion. We were birthed with a 9% EBITDA margin, and we knew we needed to grow that. So what we said from the very start was we're gonna expand our margin by 500 basis points coming out of 2026 with a run rate of 14%. We reiterated that on our Q2 call when we announced the details of our supply chain modernization program. So that's our strategy. Stable top line, drive outsize margin expansion so the profitability and cash can rattle right through the P&L. That's our model. When we think about the category, what makes our model work is that stable top line, and what's interesting for us is we believe the category is providing us the backdrop we need to create and deliver on that value. That's not true about all categories right now. There are certain categories are performing in a way where the trajectory needs to change for those participants to drive their strategy and deliver their algorithm. For planning purposes, what we did from the very start, we took a look at the category and said, "Let's go pre-COVID." 'Cause once you're in COVID and then you have post-COVID demand, and then you have price increases and inflation, and then you have the consumer environment, it's a little bit messy post-COVID. We said, "Let's go pre-COVID." We looked at that and said, "To your point, the category has been declining low single digits." That's what our planning assumption is. If you look at the category, since we've been independent, it's performing there perhaps a little bit better than that, actually. That provides us the ability to drive our value going forward. In fact, you're seeing that already. You're seeing our performance year-to-date, the top line where it is, but also our ability to expand margins and actually reaffirm and increase our margin delivery during the course of this year. How do we keep doing that might be the question that you have. I go back to what I said earlier. Number one, focus. All we're doing is thinking about cereal. Before, we were the seventh out of seven different categories at Kellanova for all the right reasons. That's not a criticism. I worked at the Kellogg Company. It was the right decision. But for us, all we do is think about cereal. Cereal's undefeated at WK. We haven't lost a debate yet about where to invest our money because everything we do is about cereal. So we focus, we've integrated the business, and our ability to invest behind enhanced marketing, enhanced sales, and supply chain, we know will drive the business. And if there's one thing that's the most tangible, if you think about the sales force, the feet on the street, what would happen before is you'd go into a, into a store and you're selling seven different categories. Now all our salespeople are doing selling one category. Think about the depth of their knowledge, the relationships that they're building, and how they should understand our category better than anybody and drive that top line. Other contributors, but that would be one that we look at and say, "That's a unique capability for WK". That's a good segue to my next question. So share gains, you know, I think you talked about maybe losing 500 basis points of share, some unfortunate transitory events that drove part of that. You've regained a lot of that. So maybe can you just pinpoint your progress in regaining that share? And on the point of service levels, can you talk about they've shown year-over-year improvement, but they're still a little bit below industry norms? So what is the timeline in your view to get back to what you describe as acceptable in service levels? No, it's very fair. In fact, I like that you're talking about supply chain when it comes to related to top line. 'Cause sometimes that's missed. Oftentimes you talk about marketing and sales, but for us, supply chain, that is a critical component to driving our top line. Certainly the centerpiece of our margin expansion, but also top line. So let me go back in time if you don't mind. I'm gonna go before the spin is 2021. We have six plants in our network, and we had a catastrophic fire in the summer of 2021. One of our largest plants went completely down. Now remember where we all were in 2021. We were all going through the increased demand of COVID. We were struggling meeting demand at that point, and an entire plant goes down. We're not present on shelf nearly as much as we would've liked to be shortly after that. Then we had a strike at four of our plants that persisted through the end of the year. That combination resulted in losing 500 basis points of share. Why? 'Cause, well, you're just not on shelf, and your competitors are gonna react to that, and consumers will react to that. And it takes you a little bit of time to get back on shelf. You don't just flip on the switch and you're producing. We're still repairing that one damaged facility as well as coming back from the strike. If you look forward, what we've done is we say recaptured 250 basis points of the 500, but recapture's probably the wrong word. We earned it back. That we, it's not our birthright to have those, the basis points and have that market share. We earn that back. We do expect to win in the marketplace going forward, particularly we talked to you about all the things we're doing to focus on cereal. But what I would say to you is what makes our model work is a stable top line. Now go to the specific point that you're making. Right now, Sherry Brice, who runs our supply chain, she's having a team meeting with all of her leaders, and her team has done a remarkable job. Yes, we're investing $500 million in our supply chain, but that capital is early in its deployment, and yet we've expanded our margins by 100 basis points already. A lot of that is the work that the supply team is doing, improving what we're doing in waste, what we're doing in capacity. That's without capital, but also service. Our service levels right now are at a place that we haven't seen in years. And to your point, there's more to come. And what's important to that is we need to do that to be reliable for our retailers. So we've made great progress. We're on our path there. And if we continue this trajectory, not only will we get to where industry norms would be, who knows where else it could go? That's great. And on that supply chain investment, so you just mentioned $500 million to modernize your supply chain. Can you maybe just take a step back, talk a little bit more about just giving a high-level overview of the work you're doing to realign your manufacturing network, improve efficiencies? And when we get to 2026, you know, what's the ultimate end goal? And does it stop there? I'm gonna turn it over to Dave, but before I do that, let me compliment Dave about this very topic, which is I talked about we were birthed with a 9% EBITDA margin. We knew that when we were announced as a leadership team, which was well over a year in advance of the actual spin. The very first thing we did as a leadership team that Dave pushed on was we need to find a path to have better margins. 'Cause a 9% EBITDA margin, it's hard to be a branded food company at that level. We knew we needed to expand it. Dave was the one who spearheaded this, having the right internal experts, external experts. We've been building this now for two years. With that, Dave, you know all the details. Yeah. I think, Megan, if you go back, we put all the details in our Q2 call, but I'll go over 'em. The first thing I'd start with is they're largely unchanged in aggregate from what we talked about in our Investor Day back in August of 2023. You know, we're pleased that we were able to kind of foreshadow it in 2023 and then come out with the details and they be broadly the same, right? If we think about that $500 million investment, think about it this way. Our infrastructure's rather aged. We have some plants in our network that we would call old. You know, we've maintained those facilities over time, but we haven't maybe moved them into the future at the rate we needed to. And so as we think about that investment, think about it in new technology, new equipment that can run faster, be more agile, meet different needs of the consumer, people capabilities, right? We're investing in people capabilities. We need to make sure that we can operate effectively and run without hiccups along the way. So think about that $500 million and kind of those type of buckets. Let's talk about what we announced in Q2. We announced that we were closing one of our facilities and downsizing another. Again, I mentioned the age of 'em, but at one of those facilities, the one we're closing, there's a technology that we would say is antiquated. Technology has moved past it in a different type of platform, and we're investing behind that at one of our facilities. We're making large investments in three of our plants, one in Belleville, Ontario, one in Battle Creek, Michigan, one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. What those investments are to do is do exactly what I said. We're putting a new line that runs more efficient, more cost-effective than the old antiquated technology. The other thing that I would say is once you pull and you make that transition to this new technology at a plant that already has that technology, so they have the expertise to do it, right? They know how to run those lines and make that food. That Omaha plant becomes downscaled pretty quickly, and the economics become pretty tough. So then what you do is you invest to the other plants, Battle Creek and Lancaster, I mentioned, that have the technology, the other platforms we run in Omaha to expand the capacity there, put in, again, new modern equipment that can run more efficiently, cost-effectively. So you can kind of think about the investment like that. The one thing that I would mention as well is in August of 2023, we put a slide out there that showed the cost differential of our highest cost plants to our lowest cost plants. Our lowest cost plants run at about a 50% less cost than our highest cost plants per pound. So that's a significant gap. And why that is, it goes back to exactly what I said, the aged infrastructure, the inefficiency of those lines, all of those things. So you can see just by really maximizing that new technology and making those investments how you'll start to get the benefits from it. Awesome. And the 15%, 14%, excuse me, EBITDA margin target exiting 2026, you're 100 basis points of the way there to the 500 basis points. Can you talk just a little bit more about your line of sight to achieving that in the context of all the work you're doing on the supply chain? Yeah. And you think about that investment, and that investment is a high ROI investment that we're making. And so the benefit that comes with it is related to that investment. So we've made good progress so far. Gary's highlighted some of the areas that we made those quick wins, I'll call 'em, in over the last year. But as we think about, and we've said from the beginning, the centerpiece of the 500 basis point is congruent with this investment, okay? And we talked about taking a plant out of the network. You can think about it in two ways. Or the savings that'll come with it is there's a mechanical nature of when you take one of your six plants out of the network. There's dollars that come out of the P&L very mechanically. The second part of it is exactly what I just said, is you're producing the same amount of pounds or more, but much more efficiently, right? So those are gonna be the two drivers of it. Just from an overall shaping, you know, you've gotta make those investments to get the benefit of 'em. So they're not gonna come right away. We knew that. That's why we knew we had to get the quick wins, the benefit of the smaller focus company, and then as we exit 2026, we'll start seeing the real benefits of this investment that after it's been made. Awesome. Maybe we could shift a little bit, just to current events. Your company has been in the news, and some of your brands have been in the news a lot over the last few weeks since the election, just related to Trump's appointment of RFK. Obviously, he still has to be confirmed, and there are still several unknowns. But, you know, maybe just to set the record straight, could you, you know, spend some time contextualizing your brand's use of artificial dyes, whether it's from an overall brand or percentage of sales standpoint, and then maybe just talk about whether you're considering making any shifts to address what could be a potential unknown risk at this point. Yeah, very fair. And we are in the news, but at the Kellogg Company, we're used, we're always in the news. It's the power of our brand. I mean, you go anywhere in the world and you mention to them you work at Kellogg, no one ever says, "Tell me more. Where do you work?" 'Cause they understand the brand. 'Cause it, it has such power with consumers. So sometimes you'd rather not be in the news, but look, we would take it because it's the power of our company and the brand and what it stands for, for all sorts of stakeholders. When you think about this particular topic, I think it's fair to say it's very early. I think this administration has every right to get their people in place, decide what their agenda's gonna be, and figure out what they want to do and drive throughout the country. Now, a couple things about the Kellogg Company and us. We've always had strong relationships around the world, United States, Canada, with our elected officials, with our regulators, with the government. That has always been the case, always will be the case going forward as well. And we would expect to do the same with this topic and so many other topics. So, we, when we think about this, where we start with this particular topic is that our food is safe. That is the first thing that we think about whenever we're operating. We've been doing this for 119 years. If you're not thinking about safety of your consumers when you're making food, you're not gonna be around for 119 years. So that will continue to be our focus. The reason why we use colors in our food is because we know it's safe, and we know it's safe because regulators around the world allow it to be in the foods based on years of studies. We also work with independent experts. So certainly we'll listen to what the governments have to say, but we work with our own independent experts to confirm whether or not what we're doing is the right thing for consumers. We know that it is. In fact, I'll go a little bit deeper. With the use of colors, there's a variety of colors you can use, but there's also certified colors. Those colors are every batch that's made gets approved before you can use it. We use certified colors. You get a sense of who we are and how we operate. How did we get here? The way we got here was years ago. This debate was out there as well. We said, "Okay, we know our food is safe, so we think it turns into a consumer choice issue." We reached out to our consumers, and we tested it in a variety of locations. In some locations, they preferred the more natural colors. In other locations, they said, "No, we want the more vibrant colors." That's what we did. That's where we are right now. Now, something that you can note from that commentary is we could do this. We know how to make the food if we were gonna go to natural colors across the board. But that's not what our, the signals we were getting, clear signals we were getting from our consumers. I think the last thing I might say is when you think about this topic, we have been in the news, but it really isn't our topic. I mean, the cereal category, not just Kellogg, the cereal category represents about 5% of the foods that are sold with colors. That's off of a study from Mintel from several years ago. So we're a small part of it. But look, let's go back to what I said originally, we're a part of it. And we're looking forward to having that dialogue with our government, with our elected officials. And we'll get, we're gonna be the partner we always have been. We would expect they would be the same. Great. Thanks, Gary. Maybe a little bit more of another current question. So you reported a few weeks ago, third quarter, you're almost done with the fourth quarter here. You reaffirmed your full-year sales guidance to be at the lower end of - 1% to +1%. That did imply a little bit of a sequential deceleration here in the fourth quarter. I think part of that was driven by some shipment benefits to the third quarter. I think when we look at the scanner data, the first couple weeks of the quarter does show, you know, maybe consumption had decelerated a few points versus where you were tracking in the third quarter. So taking a step back, can you maybe just walk us through how you were thinking about the cadence of the fourth quarter relative to what you reported in 3Q and to the extent you can share kind of how things have played out relative to your expectations? Yeah. So I think starting with year-to-date, our top line through Q3, our top line is down 90 basis points. So right around the bottom end of the range that we've spoken about, and we were able to reaffirm in Q3. So let's start there. And in Q3, we did have a quarter where we benefited from retail activity that happened in the base year of 2023. So, just to reiterate for those unfamiliar, we had a supply challenge in Q3 of 2023. What that led to was retail drawdown, okay? Because we could not ship the food. Now, we moved past that this year. We had uninterrupted supply. We overviewed that. And what that meant was, we were able to hold more normalized levels of inventory in Q3. So just from a comp perspective, we benefited from that from a year-on-year perspective. So that's Q3. That's kind of where we're at year-to-date through Q3. If we think about Q4, pretty easy to unpack if we're down 90 basis points today, where we need to be in Q4 to hit the bottom end of our range, right? So one thing that I would point you to, and we've spoken about as well, is we talked about a one-time benefit in Q4 that we get as well because we're lapping a one-time investment that went into net sales. So that you won't see in any data. It's in our P&L. So I'd point you to that as well as another thing. The last thing that I'll mention is, and we mentioned this on the Q3 call, the world looks at the xAOC Nielsen data regularly. We understand that. We do, of course, as well. There's a decent portion of our business that is in the non-measured channels, right? And so as we break that down, you have non-measured. Canada's a large portion of our business. There is Nielsen measurement that goes on in Canada, but it's not in the U.S. xAOC, to be clear. So in Canada, our business is performing very well. There's other parts of the U.S. business that are in non-measured channels. Those continue to perform for us. The last piece is Puerto Rico. Again, there is public data for Puerto Rico, but it's not in the U.S. scanner data. So I just point to those things as you think about it as we go through and finish the year. Really helpful, and maybe related to that, I think it was you, Gary, on the third quarter call that made a comment that next growth next year could be, I think the word you used was consistent with what you have seen this year. You did say several times it was still early, understanding it is still a little bit early, but you know, anything you can share with us from an update perspective on how you're thinking about the category outlook. No, that's great. Heading into 2025. Let me do something new. It's early. It's early. If you, you go back in time, you know, we have an interesting short but interesting track record in that during investor day, which was summer of 2023, because it was pre-spin, we actually had to give our guidance for 2024 in the summer of 2023. Come back to February of 2024, we announced our guidance, which was consistent with what we said, and now we're almost through a full lap, and you know where we are so far. We will certainly come back in February of 2025 and give you a lot more detail. At the same time, we thought it was fair just to say we do think next year would be consistent with this year. If you think about the overall algorithm, our view has been that we're gonna have a stable top line. We're gonna continue to improve our margin over time with a very meaningful increase coming out of 2026. That's still the shape of what we're thinking about. But Dave, I'll turn it over to you. Yeah. I, I think I'd add if you look at the category, your question's kind of back to the category. The category year-to-date's down 1%. And if you look at, you know, the more recent data, it's actually a little bit better than that. And so it's trended positive, you know, towards that 50 basis points in the more recent data. So what we said on the Q3 call, and I think it continues to hold true, going back to the algorithm and what we've said for planning purposes of what we need the category to do is be stable. And so if you look at that performance, the category is providing that backdrop. It continues to be stable. As Gary mentioned, going back to pre-COVID, category down low single digits. Well, here in 2024, down 1%, low single digits. That was our assumption as we entered the year, and that's the backdrop that it's providing as we head into 2025 and finish out 2024, and what that allows us to do is deliver on that algorithm, that we have of, again, stable top line, outsized margin growth over the medium term. And the good news is with the, you're gaining or holding share, I think, in five of or five of six of your core six brands. So in a stable category, that's obviously helpful. Special K has been the laggard, and you've been, you know, pretty clear that it's been the laggard this year. So can you spend just a little bit of time talking about your assessment as to what's been driving the weaker performance for that brand? Higher, you know, thinking about marketing activations, potential timing of a recovery for that brand, especially as we kind of head into the important new year time. Yeah. When you think about Special K, I think we would zoom out and say we've been delivering what we're delivering, and yet our second biggest brand is down double digits. That gives you a sense of the power of our portfolio, the ability for us to pivot and adjust, 'cause that is a very important brand for us. And we do expect to do better going into 2025. Let me explain a little bit. You start with Special K. It's a special brand. No, no pun intended, but it is at the intersection of taste and health. And if you think about what we know a lot of consumers are looking for, that is smack in the middle of that target consumer. A lot of consumers want something that's nutritious, but something that also tastes really good. That's what Special K delivers. So the question is, well, what's going on with the brands? Let me talk about a couple different things. First, mechanicals. Let me compare 2024 over 2023 to give you a sense of what happened in 2024. So in 2024, a couple mechanical issues would be in 2023, we had a major promotion with a retailer that we moved to a different brand in 2024. So that was a bit of a headwind. We also had a larger innovation set in 2023 versus 2024. Those two things are mechanical. We've adjusted for that. They're in a rearview mirror. We feel better about what 2025 is gonna look like. We would also say executions. We did mechanical, but also execution. A lot of the work that gets done when you're selling in promotion, when you're getting ready for customer activation happens well in advance to the beginning of the year. We were right in the middle of the spin. We were pre-spin standing up the company. It's not an excuse. We did not execute on that brand as well as we would've liked to execute. We feel better now that we're a year in, our capabilities are maturing, even better focus. We like the commercial plan that we have for next year. So mechanical, rearview mirror, otherwise solved, execution. We're expecting better execution. So for that reason, year over year, we would expect better performance in 2025 than 2024 for Special K. Now, second biggest brand, there's also strategic issues. We need to make sure strategically that message about taste and health is getting through to consumers. Special K has a broad portfolio, has a lot to offer to a variety of different consumers, lots of nutritional benefits, low calorie, low fat, high protein, folic acid. There's a variety of different things that we offer in that portfolio, and it matches specific desires and needs for our consumers. The question is, how do you get that message out? So two things. First, we've launched a new campaign called Special for a Reason. It actually expresses what I just said, that it's special for a reason depending who you are. And then, we're getting early reads. It's making a difference in the marketplace. Now it's early. We have to keep pushing it, but we feel good about that, how it's resonating with our consumers right now. But then you add to that our new marketing muscle, the new marketing model that Doug VanDeVelde is driving in our growth, function. We feel good, better about our ability of taking that message and targeting it to those consumers who need to hear it. But that's what we need to get after. The great news is it's a wonderful brand. It has terrific positioning. It's where you'd wanna build a brand right now. We just need to use our marketing muscle, and that's what we do. We're the WK Kellogg Co. We should be very good at marketing, selling, and supplying a food like Special K. Awesome. We talked a little bit about the top line performance this year. The EBITDA performance has been, you know, better than expectations. You just raised. You're expecting now 5%-6% EBITDA growth versus 3%-5% prior. Most of that's been driven by gross margin. I think that it's up 100 basis points year-to-date. So Dave, maybe you could spend some time just talking about the primary drivers of that gross margin performance this year. And as we think about, you know, looking to 2025, is that, is that something that's repeatable and, and maybe asked differently, you know, should we be thinking about maybe top and bottom line performance this year as a framework for next year? Yeah. I think it all goes back to what Gary said at the top of why the spend. And I think as you unpack that a little bit, it's playing out in the results. So again, the more focused company, the more integrated end-to-end company, not disparate five business units, acting different commercially. All of those things come together to play out in the results we've seen. So what are some examples of that? We've been able to identify where we had areas of true waste in the P&L. And when I say waste, I mean food that was either scrapped through the plants or finished goods that we had to write off. And, you know, those capabilities that we built in short term, we were able to identify those issues, quickly understand how we resolve it, and then actually execute on that resolution. And that played out through a large P&L benefit. The other thing that I would add on here is the capabilities we're building within our people, within our supply chain. We continue to be. That's a focus of ours and an area that we're leaning into to drive better operational effectiveness. We talked about, and Gary mentioned this, OEE improvement. We dug into line by line parts of the process versus pack, understanding where we had inefficiencies, where we had challenges. And what that led to is we were able to unlock OEE. What's that do for you? It allows you to produce more food in less amount of time. Simply put, right? That's a benefit for us. The other thing, and last thing I'll mention is really around how as a smaller company, we're really able to focus into investments and ROI on investments differently. I think when you're a big company, it's harder, and I can speak from that, from years of experience under a big company. It's just harder to understand where every dollar in the P&L is going and exactly what you're getting for it. In the smaller company, you're really able to dig into that, so we think about each line of our P&L, not as a cost, but as an investment. And we ask, and our whole organization asks, and that's the culture we built of what are we getting for this investment? And so at the end of the day, it's little things like that that can play out pretty meaningfully within the P&L, so last part of your question, 2025, Gary kind of hit on this earlier. We would expect, you know, broadly similar type, performance in 2025 from what you saw in 2024. Again, we'll have more details on that. I think we said it was early. I think we said that, but we'll have more details on that. Fair enough. Thank you. We have a couple minutes left. I wanted to make sure I opened it up to the room if anyone has any questions they'd like to ask Gary or Dave. Sorry. When When you're not here having fun with us in New York City and you're back in the conference room with the other executive leaders, what are the one or two things that are still sort of positive but open debates about the future of the business? Yeah. So we're back in Battle Creek, Michigan, and we're the leadership team. Let me talk about the leadership team for a second. So we've got everybody I wanted on the team, first round draft picks, because I knew they would have the debates they wanna have. And we have those debates. What we don't debate about is where our focus is gonna be near term about where we have a strategy. We just re-upped our strategy. We know we're doing the right things to optimize our cereal business. That's not changing. We're integrating the business. We're gonna drive our supply chain. We're gonna improve our direct sales force and drive our new marketing model. There's no debate there. What's interesting is where you have a debate is where are you going in the future? For us, it's an incredibly healthy debate 'cause what we can already see is our future. We talk about horizons. If you remember Investor Day, we talked about two different horizons. We said first horizon, we need to optimize our cereal business. There's so much value that we can drive for our stakeholders with a stable top line and growing our margin 500 basis points and even more afterwards. We knew we had to focus on that going forward. That second horizon is where do you go from there? We now can see the different opportunities we have as we build out our direct sales force. We say, you know what? In a certain period of time, we know that direct sales force can be an asset for us that can allow us to grow even faster. We're gonna have a dedicated distribution system. We believe we're gonna have capabilities and infrastructure unique to a company our size. So where the debate is, which is what your question is, okay, where are you gonna take it? And the lens through which we look through is if and when we get there, 'cause we talked about inorganic growth, for which companies are we the natural parent? And the reason we use that expression is if you're the natural parent, when the combination occurs, you will drive synergy 'cause the combination of the two will generate more value than the, than two companies being separate. That's where the debate is right now. But I would also tell you when that debate occurs, we quickly get back to we have a job to do right now, which is to optimize cereal. But that's where there's a little bit of arm wrestling and I think really good debate. You're welcome. Any other questions in the room? Okay. I actually think that's probably a great place to end, and we can give everyone a couple minutes to go to their next meeting. The elevators are busy. So thank you, everyone, for joining. Thank you, Gary, Dave, for being here. Yeah. Great. Thank you, Megan.