The transcript below is from our Jan. 23, 2026 webinar "Trump's Foreign Policy, Brand Risk, and the Global Perception of U.S. Business." Senior Account Executive Cooper Hardy, Head of Global Intelligence Jason McMann and Principal of Global Intelligence Sonnet Frisbie discuss how geopolitical events can quickly translate into reputational and commercial risk for global companies. Watch the full webinar here.
Cooper Hardy: Hi, everyone. Welcome to our Morning Consult webinar this morning, or this afternoon now. We're gonna give everybody a minute to pop in, so we'll kick things off in just about 60 seconds.
Cooper Hardy: Awesome, I think folks are rolling in here, so we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you to everybody for joining us for today's webinar, Trump’s Foreign Policy, Brand Risk, and the Global Perception of U.S. Business. We have a great panel here to chat with everybody today, and we’re excited to dive in. My name’s Cooper Hardy, I sit on our syndicated data side of the business here at Morning Consult.
Cooper Hardy: And I’m joined by my colleagues Jason McMann, who’s our Head of Global Intelligence, and Sonnet Frisbie, who’s a Principal of Global Intelligence here at Morning Consult.
Cooper Hardy: Just to tee up what we’ll be covering today from an agenda standpoint: we’ll give you a quick introduction to our intelligence here at Morning Consult.
Cooper Hardy: We’ll then dive directly into the analysis, looking at global views surrounding Venezuela and Greenland tensions, and the implications for U.S. brands. We’ll save some time at the end for a Q&A session with our experts, and then we’ll have a few closing remarks, and then can chat through how to get access to this data if anyone is interested in doing so.
Cooper Hardy: Excellent, and we’ll dive in quickly here just to contextualize what we’ll be talking about this afternoon. It’s no secret that the world is changing rapidly around us, and what we firmly believe here at Morning Consult is that global volatility demands a clear early warning system for all businesses.
Cooper Hardy: Events develop and change as we think about Venezuela, as we think about Greenland, as we think about American brands around the world, right? The number one way to support your business and to navigate these times is to have early and leading indicators of what is happening in real time, and how those things are changing the behaviors and the perceptions of consumers.
Cooper Hardy: How we actually support this work here at Morning Consult, and what will be the foundation of the conversation we have today: we’ve created a global proprietary data set that maps the ecosystem of human behavior. What we mean by that is we talk to about 30,000 people every single day in over 45 countries around the world.
Cooper Hardy: That means we have a tremendous repository of historical data to look at trends and changes over time, to the tune of 100 million plus historical survey interviews.
Cooper Hardy: And it means we have an incredible level of granularity when it comes to about 6 billion answered questions here at Morning Consult.
Cooper Hardy: As we collect this data, we’re asking individuals questions about economics, we’re asking them questions about politics, and about brands, and their behaviors, and how their behaviors are changing. This allows us to create a complete picture of who these consumers are, how things are changing in the world, and provide a clear level of insight into what is actually happening at a macro level, and how is that changing decision-making among consumers at a micro level?
Cooper Hardy: What we also recognize is that this always-on consumer signal and this incredible wealth of data is only as impactful as the clarity we can provide and the access individuals can gain to it. What we’ve done is we’ve created this global data collection. We’re looking at consumer data in real time. We’re supporting leading organizations around the world who are accessing all of this data through a fully AI-native platform to answer the questions that are most pressing, most concerning, and most impactful to their business every single day.
Cooper Hardy: My colleagues Sonnet and Jason will walk through a very distinct set of this data when it comes to our political analysis, but we wanted to tee up this conversation to say: this is where the data’s coming from, and this is how individuals can actually leverage this in a meaningful and impactful way. So I’ll pass it over to Jason to tee up the rest of this conversation, but we look forward to diving in.
Jason McMann: Thanks so much, Cooper.
Jason McMann: Very nice to meet you all. For anyone who’s new to Morning Consult, as Cooper mentioned at the top, my name is Jason McMann, and I’m the head of global intelligence here at the company. We wanted to kick things off with a really straightforward map slide, which will give you a sense of the 45—soon to be about 50—countries where we conduct the daily surveys that Cooper was walking through on the previous slides.
Jason McMann: So in terms of country coverage, really most of the G20, plus the next largest 25 or so emerging and frontier markets, with those that you see listed in that list in pink in the bottom right coming soon to our data collection platform as well.
Jason McMann: Quickly, in terms of what we survey on in these markets: as I’m sure many of you know, we conduct a lot of questions, or surveys, on individual brands. So: do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion toward them? What is this brand’s reputation? And so on and so forth, among consumers every single day in all of these markets.
Jason McMann: But alongside that information, we also collect a lot of political data metrics. And the one that we’ll be talking about the most today is what we call our country favorability data metric.
Jason McMann: When it comes to country favorability, essentially what we do is, in the United States, for example, we go ahead and ask: How do you feel about the United Kingdom? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of it compared to France, compared to Germany, China, and so on and so forth?
Jason McMann: And then in all those other places—China, for example—we’d ask the inverse. So: How do you feel about the United States versus France, Germany, Argentina, and so on?
Jason McMann: And often what we’ll do with that metric is we’ll transform it on a net basis, and sometimes take either a global or regional average of it to give you a sense of what “Brand USA” might look like on average. So, how do consumers across the world really think about the United States? And then, by pairing that with our reputation data, we can give a sense of to what degree something like rising anti-Americanism could impact the reputation of U.S. brands that are global in scope—doing business among overseas consumers—and who are worried that America’s rising or falling fortunes could impact consumers’ interest in buying goods and services from them.
Jason McMann: With no further ado, if we could go on to the next slide, we’ll jump into the substantive portion of the presentation today.
Jason McMann: As you see here, we note, to no one’s great surprise, that 2026 certainly started with a bang. We saw the U.S. intervention in Venezuela a few weeks ago, followed more recently by U.S. tensions surrounding the potential acquisition of Greenland.
Jason McMann: And amid these dynamics, we wanted to give you a sense today of how views of the United States are trending at the moment among global consumers, and what we think some of the reputational risks would be for brands doing business in different markets globally.
Jason McMann: If you could go to the next slide, we wanted to kick things off with a look at global average net favorability toward the United States, going back about two years at this point in time. You’ll see here that if we look at that line from 2024 into January of 2025, it was pretty flat, and it was pretty positive. Essentially what that indicated to us is that the average global consumer thought America was a decent country at that point in time.
Jason McMann: If you fast-forward into early 2025, there’s where we start to see a bit of a dip. We have a few events called out here for you on the chart. The first one would be Inauguration Day, with Trump’s victory on Election Day preceding that. As you’ll see at that point in time, it really wasn’t either of those events that caused a dip in global average views of the United States. Most of the dip that we see came a few months after that. It started from February into March, when the Trump administration moved to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and took a turn for the worse when we got into April around a lot of those Liberation Day tariff announcements.
Jason McMann: If you look from April onwards, as those tariffs were on again, then off again, and then stabilized a bit later in the year, we see views of the United States—America’s reputation in this case—start to rebound.
Jason McMann: And then if we fast-forward to about the past few weeks, we’ve seen another major dip, timed almost to the day of when the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, was ousted, followed by renewed tensions targeting Greenland. We like to use that to set the stage when it comes to what anti-Americanism looks like nowadays, and give you a little bit of historical context about how that’s trended over time.
Jason McMann: On the next slide, we’ll take another look at this same data point, but here you’ll see another line on the chart, which is this pink line. Essentially, that line is global average net favorability toward China.
Jason McMann: And the really striking thing here that we like to use to contextualize how the U.S. is looking nowadays is that, no matter how far back in time we go in the history of our data tracking, this is the very first time we’ve seen China’s reputation among global consumers outpace that of the United States. The other interesting thing we like to highlight here is that it’s not so much that there’s been a sudden rise in China’s fortunes. You’ll see that pink line has trended upwards gradually over the past couple years. But it’s really the dip in views of the U.S. that is doing most of the work here.
Jason McMann: We set this at the global stage and wanted to pivot now in a more targeted manner to look at how things have been trending in Latin America. We survey among about six countries in the region, and we wanted to look there to get a sense of: if you look at the countries among consumers in the vicinity of Venezuela, how are they feeling about Brand USA nowadays?
Jason McMann: What we’ve seen here is a bit of a mixed bag. Each of these trend lines is net favorability toward the United States among consumers in Latin America. Here we’re looking specifically at Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, as well as Mexico and Peru.
Jason McMann: With that vertical line representing the date on which Maduro was ousted from office and taken to the United States. You’ll see there’s a fair amount of volatility to the right of that vertical line. We see a few markets where views of the U.S. are flatlining, a couple others where anti-Americanism seems to tick up a little bit, but there isn’t a clear trend overall.
Jason McMann: There are a couple markets we would call out. The first would be those with left-leaning governments. These tend to be the ones where we saw a bit more of a consistent dip. If you look at that red line for Chile, for example, we see a bit of a dip after Maduro was ousted, although it’s a bit of a unique case in that their government is changing soon.
Jason McMann: The more notable dip would be Mexico, which is that gold line at the bottom there, and that’s where we’ve seen the most pronounced and consistent dip in the region so far. If you are a U.S. brand and you’re doing business in the region, Mexico is the market we would advise watching at this point in time, in part due to that dip, and in part because it’s also a relatively large consumer market. For the moment, that’s where we would expect any knock-on risks arising from anti-Americanism for U.S. brands to be most pronounced.
Jason McMann: The other market potentially worth watching would be Brazil, indicated in the chart with this darkish purple line. Views declined in the aftermath of Maduro’s ouster, but they were also declining a bit before amid some of this tariff angst going back and forth between the two countries. We would advise keeping an eye on it, again, simply because it’s a really large and currently left-leaning market, but we would caution that the shift in views predates Maduro’s ouster, as there are likely other dynamics taking place for that market specifically.
Jason McMann: On the next slide, we wanted to pivot back once again to a regional look and give you a sense of how movement in the Americas stacks up with how consumers are shifting their views in other regions at this point in time. Same metric here—net favorability toward the United States—but by region, with that pink line toward the top representing the Americas.
Jason McMann: What you’ll see is that the Americas had a relatively muted overall average decline compared to places like Europe, which would be that green line at the bottom.
Jason McMann: Part of the reason for this is that there was really no love lost toward Maduro in the Americas to begin with in many quarters. While people may not be thrilled with the U.S. attitude of renewed intervention in the region, they may also not be so upset that Maduro is gone. Something to keep in mind in terms of adding historical context to why that line seems relatively flat.
Jason McMann: In Europe, by contrast, we’re seeing a pretty large dip—about 10 points total—which is relatively large compared to other dips we’ve seen over the past year. The only time in recent history we’ve seen a dip of that magnitude has been when these reciprocal tariffs were implemented by the United States, or at least first announced back on April 2nd.
Jason McMann: Part of the reason we think this line is declining so much is not just that Europeans were unhappy with what took place in Venezuela, but also almost to the day since that intervention, we’ve seen the Trump administration ramp up its rhetoric when it comes to a potential U.S. acquisition of Greenland—either by military or negotiated means. We think it’s kind of a double whammy: not just the Venezuela incident, probably a little bit more so Greenland at this point in time as we get farther away from January 3rd. If you are doing business in Europe and in other regions as a U.S. brand, we advise keeping your attention focused on Europe for the moment, given the relatively large magnitude of the decline that we’re seeing in that market.
Jason McMann: If you could go to the next slide, here we’ll zoom in once again. We wanted to give you a sense of how things are looking in some of the larger European markets. Here again, we’re looking at net favorability toward the United States among key European consumer markets: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Jason McMann: If you think back to a few slides earlier where we saw those jumbled lines for the Latin American markets, here the trends are quite a bit clearer. In almost all of these markets, you’re seeing a pretty sharp downturn on the order of 10 to 20 points since Maduro’s ouster and since the Greenland tensions ramped up.
Jason McMann: If you look at France in particular, you’ll see quite a large drop on the order of about 15 points. That is the largest we’ve seen at this point in time, with this data current through January 20th.
Jason McMann: France, for anybody who’s following the news, has been the Trump administration’s largest antagonist when it comes to some of the Greenland tensions, particularly surrounding his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Macron was not thrilled with the line the U.S. was pursuing when it came to a potential acquisition of Greenland. Despite the fact that military tensions seem, at least for now, to be off the table as things move forward, we would recommend keeping an eye on pretty much all of these large European consumer markets in the weeks ahead. As you saw with the tariff dispute earlier in the year, views of the U.S. did tend to rebound in the ensuing months, but they did stay low for quite some time, and our expectations are similar this time around as well.
Jason McMann: If we can move on to the next slide, this is where we’ll start to make the link between anti-Americanism and how we think it will affect both individual brands and brands grouped by industry. I will pass it over to my colleague, Sonnet Frisbie, to take things forward from here.
Sonnet Frisbie: Thanks, Jason!
Sonnet Frisbie: If you look at this chart, each of these white dots represents a U.S. company that is active in multiple overseas markets. What this chart shows you is we’ve been able to help you quantify, because I think most American brands intuitively understand or can buy into the idea that Brand USA—the reputation of the United States—could impact you overseas.
Sonnet Frisbie: But then the question is: how much, and especially how much relative to my competitors or people in my industry? We have taken the correlation—how tight is the relationship between views globally of the United States and then views of given brands—and we’ve plotted that across different industries. Each of the white dots is a different company.
Sonnet Frisbie: Those vertical bars each represent an industry that you can see along the bottom there. That purple bar you see in each of those categories is the average for that industry. A really interesting picture starts to emerge, where you can see that certain industries on the far left have much higher country affinity. It’s no surprise that innovative industries like technology, consumer electronics, enterprise technology, social media, and even automotive are seen as very American around the world.
Sonnet Frisbie: As you’re looking at this and where you might fall, it gives you a general sense of how exposed your reputation might be to brand risks across markets. We’ve also done quite a bit of work modeling different shocks that we’ve seen in the global economy due to geopolitical risks using this metric, and it’s highly predictive: if there is U.S. involvement in a geopolitical event in a given market, how much is my brand likely to be hit relative to other brands in my industry. We can go to the next slide.
Sonnet Frisbie: I hope that gives you a sense of why we’re talking so much about Brand USA, and how that relates directly to your brand. We’ve talked a lot about the global view, but we also wanted to look at how Americans themselves are feeling about some of these issues, because obviously the U.S. itself is many of your most important market.
Sonnet Frisbie: Specifically on Venezuela, we’ve gotten the question: how do Americans feel about U.S. companies going in and working, for example, in the Venezuelan oil and gas sector? What we see might surprise you. It’s a tentative green light. Many Americans say that U.S. companies should invest. If you look at that top bar where you see all respondents—U.S. adults—more Americans than not are in favor of U.S. companies being involved.
Sonnet Frisbie: You can then see the party breakout. Unsurprisingly, Republicans are more in favor, Democrats are more opposed.
Sonnet Frisbie: At this bottom highlighted bar, that’s what we’re calling a policy-active audience. To the extent that you’re thinking more about decision makers or people involved in policy, we narrowed it down to respondents who were involved in a range of policy activities in their day-to-day, and asked them. What I want to call out is that gray bars on the right-hand side—that’s people who are unsure. That’s pretty large for your average American. People say: tentative green light, but I could be swayed. I’m not sure what to think about this.
Sonnet Frisbie: That policy-active audience is both more sure and more in favor of U.S. companies being active in the oil and gas sector in Venezuela.
Sonnet Frisbie: Next slide, please.
Sonnet Frisbie: Pivoting to Greenland, since Venezuela now seems like it was a long time ago, even though we’re only three weeks into the new year. With Greenland tensions, what we see is a lot more clear-cut opposition to the U.S. taking these more aggressive actions.
Sonnet Frisbie: Even peaceful things like buying Greenland or exerting only economic pressure or trade leverage are seeing pretty strong opposition, and you’ll see that dark red is strongly opposed. There’s a clear consensus among the U.S. public that the way that we’re trying to go about acquiring Greenland is not something that they would like to see. And then, of course, military action sees very strong opposition.
Sonnet Frisbie: Okay, next slide.
Sonnet Frisbie: If we force people to choose between prioritizing acquiring Greenland for national security and prioritizing maintaining strong relationships with our European allies, overwhelmingly the U.S. public is in favor of maintaining those strong relationships.
Sonnet Frisbie: It’s an indicator that that national security rhetoric we’re hearing from the administration is falling flat, because most Americans are saying: our European allies are an important part of our national security.
Sonnet Frisbie: I’ll say one more thing about this: as you’re watching congressional action and congressional responses to some of these issues, public opinion is playing into some of the actions, especially with midterms coming up. In contrast to Venezuela, we did see a fair bit of GOP opposition to the Greenland rhetoric, and I think a lot of it is because this clear-cut U.S. public opinion is feeding into lawmakers’ opinions on these issues.
Sonnet Frisbie: Next slide.
Sonnet Frisbie: Okay, so we’ve given you the international view and the U.S. view. I want to end with a little bit of a silver lining. This metric is a political risk index which measures how people are feeling internal to their own country about the political trajectory—how are they feeling about their incumbent government, and how are they feeling about the overall trajectory of their country?
Sonnet Frisbie: Despite all of these geopolitical risks we’re seeing and a tumultuous start to 2026, that vertical line we’ve put in is January 2025, and the chart ends at January 2026.
Sonnet Frisbie: What I want to call out is: higher is better, lower is bad. We actually see an improvement—decreased political risk, a better outlook for people’s opinions on their national government. Inter-country geopolitical risk: we’re in a tumultuous period, and yet we have seen an improvement in consumer sentiment about their own governments, which was not the case in 2024 and much of 2025. So, a little bit of a silver lining.
Sonnet Frisbie: We often use this to predict policy stability in many of these countries—the likelihood of a government changing over or a major policy change. In somewhere like France, for example, the government collapsing. This is a potential bit of good news for multinationals that are active in many markets. Overall, that picture is looking a little bit better.
Sonnet Frisbie: That is the content that we had for you. You can go to the next slide.
Sonnet Frisbie: And we’re going to be moving into Q&A, which we have a moderator who’s going to help us field those questions.
Cooper Hardy: Awesome. Great stuff, Jason and Sonnet, thank you. We can dive into some that have been dropped in the chat, and if folks have other questions, please feel free to throw them into the Q&A, and we’ll address them.
Cooper Hardy: The first question that came in is: Is the rising anti-American sentiment impacting purchasing intent from consumers in Europe and other regions where the negative sentiment is high?
Jason McMann: Yeah, I’m happy to jump in on that one, Cooper, and it also ties into another question we received, which was how America’s net favorability is correlated with or affecting U.S. business impact in some way. The closest analogy we have here at this point in time is: we did an exercise back in March through April of 2025, when a lot of these tariffs started to roll out, initially targeting Canada, China, and Mexico—U.S. tariffs on those markets.
Jason McMann: Essentially, what we wanted to see is: in that window, if you did a pre- and post-comparison—take a month on either side—what happened to consumers’ stated purchase consideration in those countries for consumers who would consider buying U.S. goods and services from large U.S. multinationals?
Jason McMann: The good news is that when we look on average across a couple hundred brands in each of these markets, the hit to purchase consideration was relatively small or negligible, often on the order of 0 to negative 2 or negative 3 points. So not a massive downturn—more of a blip on the radar.
Jason McMann: That said, if we look at the brands who were most exposed—heritage flagship American brands—we did see decreases in net purchase consideration of up to about 20 or 25 points. These shifts were pretty similar across the markets that we looked at.
Jason McMann: What we think that suggests is: if you are working with one of these flagship American companies that’s really identified with the country they come from—their country of origin—we see pretty strong risk exposure. If you’re not so much associated with views of America in consumers’ minds, the risk could be negligible.
Jason McMann: That’s why we like to work with brands and partners to get our country affinity metric in front of them—to help them quantify the relationship between these two things and what the risk exposure might look like.
Jason McMann: Looking forward to the European side of things, we would expect a similar thing to play out: on average, not a massive hit to purchase consideration for the average U.S. brand, but if you are one of these larger American heritage brands, that’s where we would see the largest risks.
Cooper Hardy: Awesome, thank you. Next question: If tensions over Greenland escalate, what specific signals and audiences should companies watch first?
Sonnet Frisbie: I think that answer’s pretty clear: Europe. If you remember that slide with the regional breakout, Europeans were paying a lot of attention even to Venezuela—more than Latin Americans. They were turning against the U.S.
Sonnet Frisbie: Specifically with Greenland, of course, it directly affects Europe and the NATO alliance. What we’ve seen is a very high level of awareness, as indicated by that sharp change right around those dates. Companies that are active among European consumers should be paying attention to U.S. reputation in that region.
Sonnet Frisbie: But it goes beyond that, because we also saw President Trump immediately threaten tariffs on Europe. If Greenland tensions were to escalate, it’s not fully off the table that the United States might threaten tariffs again on Europe. Europe was very prepared to use what it calls its trade bazooka back at the United States—ironically, a tool that was initially developed to counter Chinese influence and what they call bullying in trade, but that they indicated a willingness to use against the United States if the U.S. tariffed them related to Greenland.
Cooper Hardy: Great, thanks. More of a specific one here: we looked at country affinity by industry at one point during the conversation. Are you able to analyze country affinity for individual brands as well?
Sonnet Frisbie: Yes. Each of those white dots on that chart represented a brand—a specific brand. We can’t do it for every brand. Some brands are only active in a single market. But to the extent that brands are active in multiple markets, that’s how we help them understand how tightly that relationship is trending between views of the United States and views of their brand. If you’ve never talked about this with us and you’re active in multiple markets, we would love to talk to you, understand how you’re thinking about this, and see if we could help you.
Cooper Hardy: Excellent, thanks. Another question here in the chat: Are there industries where the impact of the negative sentiment on purchase consideration is high, and others where it is low? And do you have a sense of what is contributing to that difference?
Jason McMann: Yeah, I’m happy to take this one, Cooper. We looked into this back in February through April of 2025, when the U.S. trade war first kicked off again.
Jason McMann: What we saw was that it tended to be brands operating in consumer-facing industries that were most exposed—so not so much services, but cases where you’re selling a physical product to consumers. Often at the top of the list was food and beverage companies, where we saw fairly large hits, sometimes auto manufacturers, and then occasionally hotels.
Jason McMann: The other one that is more service-oriented that we would typically see at the top of the list would be brands in the tech industry—think social media or large U.S. tech companies in general. America historically has been viewed as an engine of innovation, and a lot of those recent innovations—AI or social media—have traveled the world very fast. That was the one exception: still kind of consumer-facing, but more on the services side, relative to the physical goods side.
Jason McMann: And quickly, we had gotten another comment about what MENA countries were polled for the regional slides on the political risk side specifically, and that line there includes Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, and South Africa. We do survey in other markets in the region—we survey in the Emirates, in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, and in a few others as well—but those additional markets are not included in the risk line on that particular slide.
Cooper Hardy: Excellent, thanks. And I think there’s one other question in here: Are there more opportunities for localized companies to grow in non-American markets?
Sonnet Frisbie: Yeah, I can take that. What we’ve seen, taking Canada as an example, is that in places where there’s a backlash against the United States, there’s often a pivot toward local brands. I think that’s what this question is asking. Especially in saturated markets where to grow you’re trying to take market share. Unfortunately, this would be a disadvantage to the U.S. brand in that case, but an advantage to localized brands.
Sonnet Frisbie: I’ll briefly say: this country affinity idea is not inherently good or bad. When I developed this a couple of years ago, many brands were trying to increase their country affinity with the United States because the U.S. generally has a great reputation overseas for quality and innovation. Some industries like technology are really part of the U.S. brand. So it’s not inherently good or bad—it depends on whether you’re in a geopolitical crisis where the U.S. is involved in a way the local population views negatively. Then it becomes a liability. In other cases, it could be an advantage.
Jason McMann: And also, we have a short follow-up on the MENA stuff: yes, you are correct, this would be better referred to as MEA for Middle East and Africa. Apologies for the misnomer there, and let us get that updated for the future.
Cooper Hardy: Excellent, and I think we have one more: What nuance and details can you share about the U.S. apparel industry’s exposure in Europe and China?
Jason McMann: On the apparel side of things, because it’s typically a consumer-facing industry, it’s something we would expect there to be exposure to. Typically, what we’ve seen in the past is that it varies brand by brand. If you’re one of these brands that’s recognized as being very American in some way, we’d expect there to be risks.
Jason McMann: One thing that might also be interesting to look into, depending on the market, could be segmenting across luxury and non-luxury brands, where we know sometimes they’re subject to different economic pressures and different consumer mentalities in terms of why people buy into those segments.
Jason McMann: If you would like a read on your particular brand, please feel free to reach out to us after the fact, and we’re happy to dig in and give you a more holistic look at how you might be exposed. We can layer on top of that what we’re calling a new global market assessment that’ll give you a look at some of the economics and political dynamics at play in the background. Long story short, it tends to vary a fair amount, so the safest option is to come in for a read on your particular brand or company.
Cooper Hardy: Excellent. Thanks, Jason. I think we’ve wrapped the key questions that have come in. That might be a nice segue into some next steps. We wanted to quickly flag that we have a new report that’s come out, The Year Ahead in Geopolitical Risk, to help individuals and organizations understand how public sentiment surrounding these geopolitical issues we’ve been discussing is trending, and ultimately how to help make corporate investment and policy decisions accordingly.
Cooper Hardy: This report is coming out, and individuals can access it. If there’s any other interest or questions, we can pop forward one more slide. We’ll be sending the report directly to you, but to Jason’s point around apparel questions or other specific questions in relation to your brand or your industry, please feel free to reach out directly to our team.
Cooper Hardy: We’ve put in a little Zoom poll here to see how we can help, if folks would like to respond to that. But we are here, we are motivated and excited to support individuals as they make impactful decisions as quickly and effectively as possible in this rapidly changing environment.
Cooper Hardy: Thank you, everybody, for your time. Thank you, Sonnet and Jason, for the really valuable insights, and we look forward to seeing everybody on a future webinar.