Noel Geoffroy: Yes, so as we think about fiscal ’25, it’s really–it’s year one of Elevate for Growth, and so as we’re–you know, we’re in the process of pulling together those plans now. We had some pre-budget meetings in December and then we’ll continue that process later this month and February, before we kind of provide our full look for next year. But the things that are on my mind are very similar to what we discussed in the October investor day. The first is, and I mentioned it in my prepared remarks, kind of really clear, sharpened brand equity to set the foundation, and then this new portfolio classification strategy that we talked about, so that we can really focus our investment and our resources against those opportunities that we think have the best ROI and the best chance for driving growth, fueled by the incremental investment that we will put behind it through Project Pegasus, that will really start to kick in.
As I mentioned, we kicked in a little bit of it this year, but a lot of the Project Pegasus efficiency this year offsets some of the headwinds that Brian talked about – the AIP, the interest expense, etc., so next year we really have more opportunity to invest back into the business. Then another key lever that I mentioned to Bob earlier is the expanded distribution. We’ve seen a couple of those wins that have already come in this fiscal year, but I expect more of that kind of white space distribution closing to be a significant lever for us in fiscal ’25. Those would be some of the things that I think are going to be important drivers. Of course, we also have an innovation pipeline, as we do each and every year, where we’ll bring out some great new products as well, so all of those aspects are what bring the confidence that Brian and I have on what we shared at the investor day, kind of year one of Elevate for Growth in fiscal ’25.
Anything you want to build on, Brian?
Brian Grass: No, that’s good.
Olivia Tong: Got it. Then I know at analyst day, you had mentioned–you made some discussion around M&A, looking at divesting, also looking at acquiring. If you could give us an update on that, and then also would you–your debt, obviously, the leverage profile has improved through the year. Would you look at buying something before selling something, or is your preference to sort of match those as much as possible?
Brian Grass: Yes Olivia, this is Brian. I’d say there’s activity going on in both of the areas that you mentioned. Of course, activity doesn’t always mean that there is something imminent or anything like that, but I would say we’re putting effort behind both potential divestiture and potential acquisition, and the–I agree with the comments about the leverage ratio coming down. I don’t think we would need to do a divestiture at this point before we considered doing acquisitions. I think acquisition is available to us, and sometimes these processes take quite a bit of time to execute, and so we have even more time really, honestly, to de-lever before getting to the end of a transaction. The other comment I’ll make is, I think in this environment, some people might view interest rates as being a barrier to completing acquisition, and while we have to be aware of interest rates on our end, I think we look at things maybe a little bit more strategically, and I kind of actually view the environment with lower multiplies because of interest rates as more of an opportunity than a barrier.
I think it gives us the opportunity to find quality assets at low valuations, and so we’re really looking to maybe try and take advantage of that and get something for good value.
Noel Geoffroy: The only build I would make is our approach to acquisition remains consistent, right – the discipline and the criteria that we use, the Better Together is key, so as Brian said, we have gotten our debt to a place where we can be even more interested in what is out there, and we continue to look for what’s available but also things that we might be interested in, that may not be on the market, like we did with Osprey, to see if there’s something that we think is a great strategic fit.
Olivia Tong: Got it, thanks so much.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Linda Bolton Weiser with DA Davidson. Please proceed with your questions.
Linda Bolton Weiser: Yes, hello. I was wondering if you could comment on the hair appliance category. You mentioned you’re kind of gaining market share, but maybe the whole category is not so good. It seems like Dyson is doing some nice innovation in things, I guess probably at the higher end. Can you just comment on Dyson’s influence on the category and just what you think the category needs in order to get it growing a little bit better? Thanks.
Noel Geoffroy: Yes, sure. Good to hear from you, Linda. Here’s what I would say on hair tools. When I look at the category in total, especially over the holiday period, the part of the category that’s kind of $199 and lower of price points is not performing as well. It’s the higher end, which is as you’re calling out, where Dyson is playing, that is performing better. We play more in the $199 and below part of the category today, a few items that may be above that, but for the most part we’re at $199 and below. What we’re seeing is, and I’ve mentioned this in a couple of the earnings calls, we worked to broaden our assortment across this year in our hair tools to make sure that we have the full range, so not just the higher end of that $199 but also some of the entry price point hair dryers, curling irons, straighteners, etc., and that has made a positive impact for us in that mass class of trade, where we’re seeing share improvement now that we’ve gotten that assortment broadened again.
