I think the way to think about that is, is, can you do something good, something better with the segmentation? And like Tom says, one of the important things would be, you can, yeah, segment out your top donors, your top 20% or whatever, and say, Let's send them something that makes sense to them. And it might be different. Might be a little bit different. It might be a lot different from what other people get. Another thing to do is take a look at your if you're including lapsed donors as people who haven't given it 13 months plus. Now I found that saying something different to them is usually not effective, like saying we haven't heard from you in x months, that that's not necessarily doesn't really move the needle. What moves the needle is ask them lesser amounts. In other words, where we typically go to a donor and say we're going to ask them for their last gift, plus we multiply up from there with lapsed donors. We go last gift, and we multiply downward from there. So in other words, we lower the bar for that group. And that does move the needle. It gets more gifts, lower average gift, higher, you know, higher response rate. But getting them back in the door is your is your job with those people. That's that's a segmentation that's super easy, but makes it makes a difference. If you have other like psychographic differences that make it really different, maybe we need to talk to the people in the suburbs different from the people in the city. You might segment that. That doesn't necessarily matter, but it might matter for your donors. So, you know, you might be looking at, you know, look at, what are the differences among our donors that matter?
