Jay Mazelsky : Yeah. Good morning, Chris. We think it’s primarily capacity, it continues to be capacity. I think practices are definitely working through that. We’ve seen a number of things that practices have done. And the – it takes time. I mean they’re making investments. So I think they’re investing in their staff, as well as technology, they’ve hired. They’re also just trying to balance the work life balance of their teams, so that they don’t lose folks and make sure that it could be stabilized. So I think that’s important. We do think at the margin there could be some macro impacts than we’ve seen in wellness. And I would just also point out that the wellness pieces are relatively lower use intensity-wise of diagnostics. 70% of diagnostic, 70 plus percent of diagnostics are consumed through non-wellness or the sick patient visits.
Brian McKeon: And Chris, just it’s a, it’s a great question. I think we’ve always said that the – in terms of macro where we might see it is on the wellness side where that may be more of a discretionary choice for the pet owner. Interestingly, well, the visits were down in wellness quarter frequency and utilization of diagnostics per wellness as it was up actually stronger than non-wellness. So, for the pet owners that are able to come in and get their pets in, they’re actually doing more diagnostics testing, but overall, we saw lower levels of wellness visits. So it doesn’t had probably comingled into some of the dynamics that are going on with capacity management. And there may be a level of impact there. We have seen that in international markets that we’ve been highlighting as we go.
And so it’s something that we’re paying attention for. We’re planning appropriately for it, but I think it’s as Jay pointed out. I think – we think this is continues to be more of an impact from the ongoing ability of the practices to staff and be able to manage the demand that they’re facing.
Chris Schott: Okay. Great. Thanks guys. And just a second question was just I think you mentioned a little bit about US versus international. Could you just kind of bigger picture, are you seeing noticeable differences in terms of what’s happening in the US versus in the pure international markets? And just, as part of that, is this guidance update, kind of assuming a global impact in terms of visit slowdowns? Or is this skewing more US versus international? Thank you.
Brian McKeon: We definitely saw more of an impact internationally on from macro pressures really starting at the end of 2021. And I would say that that has normalized over time and it’s now relatively more in line with the US trends. We’ve done quite well internationally. We’re doing – benefiting from our premium instrument installed base expansions, so that really helps our growth rate. And we highlighted this quarter, we’ve seen actually for a few quarters now relative improvement in the volume trends. So, I think the – it’s more in line I think with what we’re seeing and started some of the US pressures more recently. And it does seem to be normalizing and relatively improving. You can see that in some of the international metrics things like with our reference lab growth was improved in Q3. So that’s a positive trend and we’re just being realistic about the macro backdrop that we’re facing and planning appropriately.
Jay Mazelsky : And keep in mind, the international sectors just a bit different in terms of its overall characteristics. It tends to be more of a sick patient roll out testing approach from a veterinary practice standpoint. So, obviously, that that’s an area of richer diagnostics usage scenario, less sensitive to some of the discretionary spend that you may see in a difficult macro environment. So, as Brian said, we’re happy with our progress and continues to improve we think that the team is executing extremely well, and the opportunity over time is very substantial.
Chris Schott: Thank you.
Operator: Well go next to John Block with Stifel. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
John Block: Thanks guys. Good morning. Brian, maybe just to start with you. The 3Q ‘23 sales and marketing expense was down by 3% to 4% Q-over-Q. I’ve got usually like flat to slightly up 2Q two to 3Q. And this year’s decline was despite ongoing increases that you guys have called out on the commercial investment. So, I don’t know, I’m guessing aspects may have played a little bit of a role Q-over-Q this year in 2023, but anything to highlight on what costs you were able to take out in the S&M side that drove the sequential decline? What you were able to do or lean on even in light of the commercial investments that seem to be ongoing through the end of the year?
Brian McKeon: Yeah, John. It’s principally a lapping dynamic. We – last year in Q3 had some relatively higher sales and bidding costs. Specifically, there’s some discreet costs on both the sales and marketing and the R&D side that we’re lapping. And so, it – as I noted in our outlook, we’re expecting a relatively higher level of OpEx growth in Q4. So it it’s more related to this year-on-year specific factor dynamic.
John Block: Okay. Sorry. Just my question was sequentially not year-over-year. So my apologies. The 2Q to 3Q was down 3% to 4%. It’s usually up 1%. You’re making commercial investments. I guess what I’m – just trying to get a little bit is like managing the bottom-line in the near-term and getting the EPS and we’re exceeding the EPS number. Were there anything in sales and marketing that you scale back on in light of the lighter revenue number? Again, Q-over-Q, no.
Brian McKeon: No, you have – there’s typically some variation and cost quarter-to-quarter that that are unrelated to things like staffing. So we haven’t scaled back on anything.
John Block: Okay. And then, maybe just to shift to your second question. I’m going to show my age and flashback to set of you, initially you guys expected, I think it was three to six thousand in consumable revenue per box on set of you. I get it a couple quarters in that forecast came down at 3,000 to 4,500, maybe you can just talk about how that eventually shook out, as that product cycle matured? And in any comments on the IDEXX in view trademark, which hit last week, it seems like to us that’s probably the BMX analyzer and then how to think about the revs per box on the new system. Thanks.
Brian McKeon: So on set of you, if I got your question right, the the utilization per placement played out actually quite very much in line with what we expected. So I think we haven’t updated that for a bit, but I think that that was tracked consistently in line with our original estimate since sustained over time. So I think that that has been on track to our estimates. And it’s, it’s pretty much sure for us to get into the specifics on the, on the new instrument launch. We’ll look forward to sharing more on that next year. Just to reinforce, these, as you know, these types of platforms build over time really the biggest effects from them are that they open the door for conversation with veterinarians to talk about IDEXX technology and innovations and adopt them in their practice.
