Episode 4 – The view from the ‘Corporate Box’ with Rosanna DeMarco

Dec 3, 2021

About this Episode

Rosanna DeMarco offers perspectives on how a major corporation looks at the innovation landscape and what it seeks in its partnerships. We explore with Rosanna some perspectives on know-how, including relationships with clients, and samples and prototypes that can support the value creation process.

Transcript

CB: Hello everybody, and welcome to Tech Transfer Talk. My name is Cameron Begley and joining me on this episode of Tech Transfer Talk is Rosanna DeMarco, a long-standing friend of mine and former colleague of mine when I started the journey at Dow Chemical, nearly 30 years ago. Rosanna, hello, how are you?

RD: Good, thanks. Cameron.

CB: Thank you for making time to join us today, Rosanna. I have been looking forward to talking to you over the last few weeks as we’ve been recording these podcasts because one of the things that started to unfold is everyone has a different definition of technology transfer. Everyone sees it as a slightly different thing and I guess, when we first met, we were in a form of tech transfer, but perhaps not what everyone refers to these days. So, it’d be great maybe to start back at Dow and what Technical Service and Development did and how that fits into the big picture.

RD: Technical Service and Development was really around a group of engineers and chemists predominantly who, working within a global chemical company, would take technology from the organisation, so commercially available technology in an organistion and roll it out to commercialisation. And that meant basically working with customers and end users, selling the features and benefits of materials, whether they are existing materials or new materials, and overcoming any technical issues in the field, communicating what the advantages of those materials and technologies were to our customers ,and basically creating value for the company and also for our customers. And so, tech transfer was predominantly in a technical service and development perspective, it was really around creating value for various partners, but also using our personal contacts with customers, our relationships with customers, all those channels with customers and end users, and basically rolling out technology.

CB: Rosanna, there are so many different interesting aspects of that description of tech transfer in the technical service and development role we were in. The one that I’d like to explore to start with is the importance of the relationship with the end users and ultimately, the buyers of the product. Those relationships, in a tech transfer sense, in my experience, they drive the value creation.

RD: The relationships are important when you think about – because I have an intellectual property background as well., whenever I think about customer relationships, I really think about customer relationships as being a form of intellectual property. Because if you lose your best salesperson or your best technical service person, those customer relationships have to be rebuilt. You can have all the information you like about what the customer does and who the key contacts are at the customer. But you’re essentially having to build that trust, the engagement, the friendship, potentially that’s there. And so, the customer relationship, I think, is really, really important, and it’s around trust. And when you’re trying to roll out new technology to customers and end users., they need to buy into the story. They need to hear what you’re saying and buy into what is the value for my organisation? Am I going to commit, potentially a machine which costs thousands of dollars an hour to run, for you to trial this new material? Can I trust you to get a product at the end of it? Is this trial going to work? How much waste are we going to generate? Are you going to break my equipment? All those questions must be going through their minds. And so, the relationship with the customer and the end user is really important. And I always regard it as intellectual property. People don’t, they think intellectual property is a bit of paper that’s codified in a patent or a design. But I always think the actual relationship is extremely valuable in a sales environment and also in a TS&D environment.

CB: That is just a terrific point. The value of the relationship and the valuing of relationships is part of the technology transfer spectrum. Not just valuing the patent or the secret source or the software, but actually valuing the relationships that sit within that ecosystem. I’m interested also in that relationship Rosanna ,when I think back to Dow, and I think of just the enormous intellectual horsepower that we had access to internally, I’m interested in your experiences of where that know how transferred back the other way. Where, in fact, things were learnt from the customer that improved the overall offering, perhaps not just to that customer, but inevitably it spills over into your general knowledge. I’m interested in whether how much does it flow back the other way?

RD: It really does. And when we used to talk about end use applications, we talk about the performance requirements of a particular application. Say an automotive application, a coding application, whatever the end use application was. And it was really only with that one-on-one engagement with a direct customer or an end user that we could really gauge what is the relative importance of those performance requirements? Does the material have to glow in the dark? Does the material have to smell like roses? All of those things you can speculate as to the value of, here’s my new shiny toy, and I want to sell it to everyone. But really, what is the value of that new shiny toy? And it’s really the customer and the end user who will tell. You know, your shiny toy doesn’t glow in the dark, your shiny toy doesn’t smell like roses. I like the way it sounds, but the colour ‘s not right. That’s the sort of feedback that you get from your customers and your end users. And I think that one on one engagement with the customers and the end users is really important because it really helps you as you’re creating and almost finessing your technology. It gives you an opportunity to really take a cold, hard look at your technology and say, okay, this is really my value proposition. These things that I thought were fantastic properties really aren’t hitting the mark with the end user and they’re not hitting the mark with the customer. And guess what? They’re never going to pay for that. This is the property that the customer’s really interested in.

CB: It is interesting. I think we all have fallen in love with our technologies at various stages through our careers. The thing you think is going to be fantastic and the customer is ‘Nah, I’m  not interested in that.‘ How’s that possible?

RD: Well, this is the thing that was always really interesting about tech transfer because in my work with universities and with inventors, sometimes they would come to us and they’d say, ‘I have this technology’ and I’d be looking at it thinking, oh, but it’s an ugly baby. You have an ugly baby. It’s very hard for me to say that you have an ugly baby, and you don’t recognise that you have an ugly baby, but potentially there is an ugly baby there and people don’t want to hear it necessarily.

CB: It is interesting to touch on that in-licensing aspect as opposed to that out-licensing or outselling aspect.

RD: One of the things that I found interesting about technology rollouts is and I was involved in several product launches over the decades, is with a new product launch, we would build a rollout strategy. So we’d look at our geographies, and our end use applications, and different customers, and we’d develop a strategy as to how we would launch these products and who we would target first and second and third and that sort of thing. And we’d look at trialling, our initial trials at early adopters versus customers who would be slower in taking up new technologies. And we had a grid of what we thought our value proposition was against various customers and different applications. But sometimes there are surprises. You know, you could do all the work that you wanted in hitting this particular customer and this end use application and this geography. You were absolutely confident of the value proposition for that particular case. And it would be a really hard slog and things wouldn’t go right and we didn’t quite nail the technology. And curiously, there’d also be these serendipitous events where you’d have an application that you really didn’t think you had a very strong value proposition ,in a country where you didn’t really think it was going to work with a customer that you thought maybe was going to be low on the uptake. So, it was actually really interesting to see how with all the strategising and we thought we’d have this great case for our value propositions and the customers we were going to hit. Sometimes it was actually these little curious serendipitous events where you’d get a customer buying or purchasing these materials and it’d be, ‘Wow, how did that happen? ‘We didn’t put a lot of effort there. We really didn’t think it was going to work. And yet, guess what? It did and it worked really well.

CB: It’s a very familiar theme that serendipity is an important component, yet it’s completely uncontrollable. That right place, right time, or chance favors the prepared mind. Whatever particular proverb you want to use. You just need an ounce of luck. You can do all the preparation in the world and at the end of the day, you do all that; luck is all that’s left over. You get that bit of luck and you’re off

RD: And you take it, as well.

CB: And that was the very question I was going to ask you, Rosanna,.I guess these days they refer to that as pivoting. But when you’re in the fray of it and been doing it as long as we both have, it didn’t have a name because it was just, ‘Okay, we’re going to sell to this customer because they want it.’ It’s meeting the need of a customer. Just got a trendy name now. So, from your migration from TS&D as a seller, outward looking intellectual property and tech transfer moving into a more corporate role of inbound licensing tech transfer into the organisation. I’m curious what prompted the change. Just personally, I think it’s interesting to go from the buy side to the sell side to the buy side, but then the different view you had to take instead of looking up customer value creation from a corporate value creation perspective.

RD: Yeah. I trained as a chemist, so I went into technical service and development. I became a subject matter expert in polyolefins particularly. But during that time, I was interested in new technologies, and I guess, look externally at external technologies because the reality is there are good ideas developed all around the world in lots of different universities and research organisations. The companies that I’ve worked for recognise that. Companies recognise that good ideas don’t come necessarily from within. They also come from outside the organisation. I think people are pretty aware of that-

CB: Internal scouting role in that sense, to understand all the needs of the business’s experiences with these tech transfer officers after that initial beach ed has been established, I anticipate there’s been many different flavors of how those discussions have proceeded. More rather than style than process. I could reasonably expect it’s a nondisclosure. And then you keep talking. And then you’ll get a term sheet, and you’ll keep talking. I’m interested to explore the styles and sort of, what may have worked for you as a buyer and what perhaps didn’t work for you as a buyer.

RD: Yeah. I can tell you one thing that doesn’t work,

CB: Please.

RD: Because I hope I came across as pretty flexible in terms of people approaching us with new technology. But one thing that doesn’t work is a researcher coming to us and requiring a secrecy agreement or a confidentiality agreement without any indication of what the technology is,;without any sort of sense of, should I be spending company resources on trust? I don’t know this person. I don’t know what their background is. I don’t understand their research background. And, you know, occasionally we’d have a loan inventor saying, ‘Well, I’ve got this great new technology, and I need you to sign a confidentiality agreement.’ And that and that just doesn’t work.

CB: Trust me. I’ll tell you after you sign.

RD: Exactly. And that’s problematic for a global organisation. It’s problematic because is there’s a real risk of contaminating internal research and development with someone’s work, which may or may not be related to a company’s effort, their research efforts, and there’s a real, within I guess, certainly the companies that I worked for, there’s a real reluctance to sign anything until we understand is this going to contaminate our R & D? Number one, we don’t mind signing agreements if there’s some sense of, yes, there’s a fit. We’re not going to contaminate an existing research program within the organisation, but we definitely don’t want to be just signing an agreement without some sort of sense of value going forward. I think it’s a real risk, and, from my experience, lawyers tend to be quite reluctant to sign agreements with because of the risk of contaminating R&D. Until we get a sense of ,what can we assess of the technology. And I don’t need to know, for example, all the ingredients of your, you know, magic potion. Just tell me what it does and tell me what it does. Tell me what it does and tell me what I can do with it. And if those two things make sense, then maybe we’ll get into a secrecy agreement. And I can define very narrowly the scope of that secrecy agreement. But I’m not going to write a secrecy agreement saying anything that comes out of this person’s mouth is therefore secret. No, it doesn’t work that way.

CB: No, absolutely. That’s really interesting. Maybe coming around the other side then, things that have really worked for you as a buyer, as a tech transfer office approaches some examples of what’s really worked for you.

RD: Look, where it’s worked really well is where the researchers have had good IP ,really good IP in place, or at least applications, and those sorts of things in place. Good record keeping. We like, for example, that. In tech transfer, you want to be able to buy not just a patent application and potentially a future patent, but some data books. Is there data? Are there samples? What were the processing conditions? All of those bits of kit or the bits of information that the researchers have which propel the program forward six months?.You know, we don’t we don’t have to start from scratch again. We’d like to be able to start where you left off, basically. So good data books and good information, samples, those sorts of things are really valuable.

CB: That’s really interesting. Just that very point is really interesting. I would broadly categorise that in the know-how bucket those lab books and the process conditions, the things that didn’t quite work,

RD: All of that.

CB: Yeah, I think you’re one of the few, if not the only person, that’s mentioned lab samples that you’ve got on the shelf out the back that may or may not have worked, that you’ve kept. And you can see a little bit of what’s happening, either their aging properties or just what happened in that experiment. So that’s really interesting that all of those things are identified as a buyer. Those are things that are immediately of value or add value to the prospects of doing a deal.

RD: Yeah, I would hope that, when you do a deal, you’re not just buying the patent application. We’d want to see more than that. We’d want to see samples. Any sort of pilot products that have been made on a smallish line, all the variants. So, what worked, what didn’t work, and everything in between would be really useful in tech transfer.

CB: It makes enormous sense to me, and I just wonder whether that’s communicated regularly to the sellers. That all this other stuff matters, and just rocking up with the patent and us talking about it in the room, how broadly communicated is that value proposition from a buyer’s side? That all of these other components are valuable, and I would reasonably expect if they’re not brought forward at the start, they get found in due diligence anyway. So, start thinking about things like samples, process conditions, notebooks. Make sure they’re all there, because if they’re not, it diminishes the chances of getting through the due diligence process. Because if you start and then you find all there is is the patent and maybe a couple of scratchings on the back of a piece of A4, your appetite for the transaction might fall away pretty sharply.

RD: Yeah, because then it becomes, you’re having to start from scratch in terms of building back the IP, and can you even reproduce the work? All of those questions come back, and you just think, well, you know. If there’s if there’s good laboratory practice, there should be data books, there should be samples, there should be retained materials, example prototypes that are valuable to the buyer because they are really interesting bits of information.

CB: I wonder, just in thinking aloud about this concept, the other piece of that is then the value becomes discounted. So, these things can’t – you still may be interested as the buyer, but because the risk is now moving from the seller to the buyer because of this reconstruction phase, if I can call it that, then the price will, I think, naturally drop. Instead of the aspirational X, it might be 0.5 X or 0.1 X, depending on how far we go.

RD: Yeah, you’d think so, but often, in my experience anyway, those materials aren’t handed over until the agreement is negotiated and the price is negotiated. And so, you almost do the negotiation first and then the materials come later, and you think, ‘Oh, I didn’t get much for my money here.‘

CB: And you’ve had that experience. I infer from that.

RD: Yes. My view is if researchers, if they maintain the disciplines, keep everything together, I just think it creates the comfort in the buyer, in that there is something there. It’s not just this patent application, there’s all the background info there’s the samples and everything else is part of the purchase.

CB: It is interesting, that scenario, though, from a buyer’s due diligence perspective, I certainly understand how all that gets agreed and then you get to look under the bonnet and see what’s there. It’s an interesting thing around the timing of that due diligence, whether it’s in front of the commercial negotiation in parallel with the negotiation, or as you’ve just described it, it was right. And then we got to the end, and we signed and then there wasn’t quite what we expected. And that then gets getting all legalistic. Is that like warranties, is it that you expected one thing but didn’t write it down properly? It gets a bit gray.

RD: If you negotiate up front, then everyone’s on a level footing because you don’t know if the technology is going to work.

CB: That’s right.

RD: So you negotiate your royalties or your commercial terms, you don’t really know whether it’s going to work or not. Everyone’s got their fingers crossed and they’re hopeful, so you’re quite even as partners. But if you negotiate after all the evaluations are done and you’ve really had a good look at the technology and you’ve done your assessment and due diligence, then, you know, one partner could be in a more powerful position than the other. So, I guess there’s pros and cons for both ways of doing the negotiation.

CB: It really is an eternal battle around, what I’d might call information asymmetry, that how much each party knows or doesn’t know. I think the related piece of that, and I’d be interested if you’ve been through this, is where you enter into the research collaboration. There’s a commercial right tagged on the end if you lock down the commercial terms before you know how the tech works. So this isn’t about taking it off the shelf. This is jointly developing it. And then if you lock in the terms at the end before you know how the tech works. My experience is at least one of the parties is always unhappy at that point, and sometimes both.

RD: I think the way negotiating agreements and particularly the commercial terms is, I think companies have policies around it, or maybe some are more – adhere to certain policies than others, and it’s probably very technology dependent as well. I think some technologies or some technical fields are more likely to negotiate at the end versus upfront. I think it just depends, Cameron.

CB: I certainly recognise, even different business units, let alone a corporation, would have different risk settings around those. And certainly there are not only differences between companies, but there are differences in business culture from North America to Europe to Asia, which you’re very familiar with as well. What are the tips you would give to tech transfer offices and vendors, or technology vendors, if you like, because it’s more than tech transfer offices these days. What’s the advice you give them for approaching a large corporate or a multinational around positioning their technology? We know don’t ask for an NDA on a blank slate. Be prepared in terms of the information you’ve got, but in terms of that approach, the style of doing that business, are there any suggestions or thoughts that you could share that might help those offices engage.

RD: You know, over the last, probably not quite a decade, the expression ‘open innovation’, I just hear it so much, and there are lots of companies actively promoting open innovation. They have websites, they encourage inventors to go on there and use the websites. They also have external technology focal points, who are often technical people who do scouting, technology scouting. I would encourage researchers to use those open innovation channels, whether it’s a person, whether it’s a website. But one thing that I think researchers need to be mindful of, is I’ve noticed that open innovation websites, where they do ask for people to upload their technology, researchers need to be mindful that there’s no confidentiality there. Whatever they’re giving up, they need to be very confident that that’s not going to destroy patentability, it’s not going to destroy design registrations or trademark registrations or any of those IP capture methods. They just need to be cognisant of protecting their IP. So, I encourage people, use open innovation channels, but look after your IP. Make sure you’ve got your provisional patent filed, hopefully converted to a patent application. Get your designs registered before you start shopping around your technology. As an IP person, that’s what my recommendation would be.

CB: Yeah, there’s that aspect of multichanneling too, which is, you know, I guess I’m inferring that you don’t put all your eggs not only in one person, but you don’t put all your eggs in one company. You know, as a seller of technologies looking for partnerships, you don’t just hope that the one you’ve chosen, for whatever reason, is the one ,you’ve got to be alert to those other opportunities. Very, very into what we talked about earlier around the TS&D piece, where all of a sudden that opportunity popped that you never had on your grid, and you’ve got to be ready to dive on that opportunity. And that’s your monetisation. That’s your product getting into the market and starting to create value.

RD: Yeah, I would not be putting all my launch eggs into one basket. It just doesn’t make any sense, because as a commercial organisation, we wouldn’t just pin our hopes on one customer. We would be spreading the joy. So, I think researchers should do the same. They should be mindful that – and also, the other thing is, when companies sign agreements. You know. I’m always conscious of agreements with exclusivity terms in them because it’s great to hear about the opportunity to have an exclusive deal with a particular organisation. But then the suspicious person that I am think, ‘Are you just trying to tie me up for two years while you evaluate a product versus’, I will give you exclusivity in this end use application, but we’re going to shop it around for all these others. So my suggestion to researchers is, if you do sign exclusivity arrangements, make sure there are commercial terms in there which says if that company fails to commercialise within this period, then this deal falls over.

CB: Yeah. Clawbacks.

RD: Yeah. Because it’s just the risk of people tying you up and binding your hands to go out and commercialize elsewhere, I think is too high.

CB: That’s really interesting. Rosanna, we had this conversation with Ray Miller in our last podcast around Exclusivity, and he was talking about the commercialisation of Seoona 1,3-PDO out of Dupont. And he talked about that exclusivity trap. And in fact, he shared with us that they had a strategy of two in each jurisdiction. They’d licensed two companies in each jurisdiction. So that way you had almost exclusivity. But the proposition was so strong for the buyer that they were happy to go with one competitor. And in any event, it was pretty clear from my recollection that they weren’t prepared to give just one license. They always were going to give two, but they didn’t want to dilute the value, so they didn’t give any more than two.

RD: Yeah, it’s actually a really clever strategy because it keeps them honest. They’re both competing with each other and not just sitting and doing an evaluation. And then three years later, they’re still evaluating. And five years later, they’re still evaluating. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on a patent. It’s just. exclusivity can come back to bite you if you’re not careful about the way you draft terms around it. So, I completely agree with that strategy.

CB: No, it’s a really interesting point because different parties have different views on, as the seller, you really don’t want to get too tied up in exclusivity, As the buyer, well, that’s a different story. ‘Of course, I want it.’ So, there’s this dynamic tension and many has been the discussion around performance criteria and clawbacks and all these sorts of mechanisms.

RD: If you’ve signed any sort of exclusivity arrangement then you really are in a pickle. Unless you’ve got an exit clause in there which says if you don’t buy this amount of product or sell this amount of product, then this agreement is null and void or something. Some sort of wriggle room for you to. Do something with someone else and partner with another organisation.

CB: Yeah, absolutely. No, really interesting. I’d like to return to your thoughts around open innovation more broadly, maybe just as we draw things to a close. The open innovation has taken on a whole life over the last, probably 25, 30 years. There was a whole machinery, whatever business unit you were in. There were labs around the world that were internal R&D, and I don’t think you ever thought of talking to anyone about technology outside the Organisation. I left Dow a long time ago, but the needle started swinging, obviously, in Dow as that open innovation philosophy took hold. I’m interested in your thoughts on open innovation and that shift over the course of our careers. Not necessarily whether it was good or bad, but just a little bit about how that’s affected the way you go about your business, your activities as someone in that role for years, but also a little bit about how that’s changed the landscape around competition.

RD: That’s actually a really good question. Look, I’ve been working for more than 30 years, as have you, and things have changed. There’s this thing called the Internet. In the old days, you had to physically get the journals out of the library, and you’d physically have to be going through them. Now you can get online. You’ve got Google Scholar, you’ve got Espacenet, you’ve got patents online. It’s so easy to identify subject matter experts. It is just so easy. And this has brought so many advantages to researchers. I don’t have to rely on researchers in Australia. That’s – there are pros and cons with known researchers in Australia hope that Australian organisations will work with them preferentially. But here’s a little warning to researchers in Australia. Organisations in Australia aren’t necessarily going to work with the university up the road. They’ll want the best technology available. And if that’s in Finland or if that in Mongolia, then that’s what they’ll so there are some positives and negatives. One is the positive is that people can find you really easily because you publish, you patent, they can see your documents online very readily and easily. But the negative is Australian organisations aren’t necessarily going to go to the around the corner to do their work or to partner with. They’ll look more broadly. And the other thing that happens is global organisations don’t necessarily have budgets where they want to spend money, in this country or that country, they want to spend money on the best technology.

CB: So, it therefore makes it a global contest of ideas.

RD: Yes.

CB: So, then what differentiates you? Not you and I, but you as a technology practitioner, you as a technology vendor? What differentiates you in that open innovation system from the good researchers in Mongolia, Finland, and other jurisdictions? How do they differentiate?

RD: That’s the question. They have to be good. They have to be differentiated, and there’s got to be an advantage of their technology, whether it’s cheaper, better, faster, glows in the dark, whatever the advantage is that needs to be defined and sold as part of the technology offering.

CB: So how do you differentiate? I’d suggest that we’ve stumbled onto that earlier in our conversation back in your TS&D days. In our TS&D days, it was the relationships. That’s the thing, the  diff… we’re going to both sit here and say how fantastic your polyethylene was and my ion exchange was. So, we’ll get past that straight away and just get to the relationships, right?

RD: It is true. It is true. But I have to say, as an employee of an organisation which makes very specific products of specific technologies, if I’m funding a research program, I don’t want to have to be teaching a research organisation, how to do basic testing and basic formulation of my product.

CB: Isn’t that interesting?

RD: Yeah, I absolutely want to go to the subject matter experts. I don’t want to teach you the test methods. I don’t want to teach you how to run the stuff. I don’t want to teach you from scratch how to do this. I’d rather go to the subject matter expert. And one of the reasons for that, Cameron, is because then, your researchers now have my IP, my know-how, and you could potentially work with my competitor up the road and offer them a research project that maybe I’ve turned down. And now, you know all my performance requirements, you know all my potentially my end use customers, the defects in my product, the advantages of my product, and that IP is not something that I want to share necessarily with my competitor. My view is, you know, if you’re, if you have expertise, work with organisations who have similar technologies or find partners who have related technologies, because it’s very hard. And it’s actually quite difficult to have to deal with an organisation where you’re training them from scratch on how to deal with some with a particular material.

CB: The market-oriented R&D, the technology development, whatever phrase you want to use, there has to be a capability within the technology vendor that understands the industrial needs associated with the technology, actually understand what that means in terms of an industry implication, what it does, what it could do, what problems it might solve. So it’s beyond just the inventive step almost.

RD: Yeah, it is. And it’s important because that speaks to who are your likely customers going to be, but also the value of the technology. How do you value a technology if you really don’t understand the value of the technology? So, it’s all of those things, I think.

CB: Yeah, no, it’s interesting. It’s that…it presents as that deeper industrial interface, that industry knowledge and almost to bring it full circle, as a technology vendor you almost need to have that TS&D capability because you need to be able to understand the needs of your customer and your customers customer and present the technology, you’re selling in way that makes sense to create that value. It’s that same set of relationships we started with back in the 90s, so to speak, which all have echoes…the sort of behaviors and the style all echo into technology transfer from the research house, so to speak, out to industry. It’s that intimate knowledge of industry which then becomes a differentiator in an open innovation system.

RD: Yes, I encourage research organisations to reach out to industry, create relationships, build partnerships, and if your first project doesn’t get off the ground, there might be others. But those relationships just mean it’s an easier route to making another connection, at a time when the next project comes off the ground.

CB: Yeah, absolutely. It’s rare that the first idea is the right idea.

RD: Exactly right.

CB: Yeah. Fantastic. Rosanna, it’s been wonderful chatting to you. Thank you very much for making time to share your experiences with the Tech Transfer Talk podcast.

RD: Fantastic opportunity to chat to you.

CB: Thanks a lot.

RD: Thanks Cameron.

spotify-podcast-badge-blk-grn-165x40 Created with Sketch.
EN_Google_Podcasts_Badge Created with Sketch.