Jonathan Feeney: I’ll start. Jon Feeney at Consumer Edge. You mentioned, Matt, a lot of CPG companies talking about elasticities are better, let’s say, but yet everybody’s get gross margin headwinds. And I wonder the data seems to say that consumers are quite receptive and you get retailers in November, December to how hard things are event one that was talking to food companies about why they need to lower prices. So could you give us a little more — shed a bit more light, maybe unlike that pricing process where — I mean, if — why wouldn’t you just price in some of these categories until you got the elasticity you were looking for and optimize the profit pool that way?
Matthew Farrell: Yes. Well, I’m sure you know the way it works is in order to raise price, you have to have a cost story. And without the cost story, you don’t get the price. And the retailers have all the data about what’s going on in the marketplace with respect to commodities, transportation, et cetera. So it’s — it is a negotiation about, hey, this is what we’re seeing on the cost side. We need this price increase and then there’s a debate. — and Paul lives this every day. You can give Paul the mic and he can share it a little bit with you. But yes, that is it around the world with all the retailers is. You can only go as far as you can justify with cost.
Paul Wood: Yes. I’d simplify it as transparency, the retailers expect you to be transparent with them to that cost story that he said. I think we’ve been extremely successful in being transparent. That develops a trust. So when we do come in and share a transparent story and timing is important, too. Retailers have financial demands and controls and different things. And I think we’ve been very good at being showing them where the world is moving, where we expect — so we have these conversations. They’re not surprises. So trust transparency and timing, I would say, has been our secret sauce. And while it may seem a cliche and everyone should do it. I think that’s what’s allowed us to experience the elasticities we have and make the choices we have as well.
Anna Lizzul: Hi, thank you. Anna Lizzul with Bank of America. I was wondering if we could go back to the conversation around marketing investment. Just wondering if you can talk a little bit more about how you’re planning to allocate this increased investment between your legacy brands and maybe some of the more recent acquisitions? And then just in terms of acquisitions, how are you thinking about maybe the personal care side versus discretionary just given the success of some of your more recent acquisitions like HERO versus some which maybe have been less successful in the past? Thanks.
Matthew Farrell: Yes. I’ll let Barry comment on the marketing. With respect to acquisitions, we only hire one person in our entire acquisition, M&A department, which is very church and Dwight like. So we’re not have a dozen people that are studying categories saying, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be in this category. Yes, it might be, but you can only buy what’s for sale. So anything that’s for sale, particularly in the U.S., that’s consumer products, we are aware of and you know what our acquisition criteria is as well. And we’ve — even in the last six months, there’s three acquisitions that we diligence that we passed on, had good economics, but they just didn’t — we didn’t think they had good long-term potential for the company.
But because we’re able to make so many different products, we’re in so many different categories, we can liquid in a bottle. We can put powder in a box. We put anything in a tube. We know how to make lots of things. So consequently, we can throw a pretty wide net as far as things that we might be able to take on as a company. But I’ll dish it over to, Barry.
